KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.51/03 JUDGMENT DATED.27.02.08 PRESENT: SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, K.K.Building, II Floor, Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – The appellant is represented by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd., : APPELLANT Divisional Office, St.Joseph’s Press Building, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs
R.Ajikumar, S/o.Ramachandran, residing at Ram Bhavan, Kalladichavila, : RESPONDENT Chempazhanthi PO., Thiruvananthapuram Dist. JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.4.12.02 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.No.612 of 2000. The complaint in the above said O.P.612 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming insurance amount of Rs.30,000/- with compensation and cost on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/insurance company. 2. The opposite party/insurance company repudiated the claim made by the complainant. The insurance company filed a written version contending that the claim made by the complainant as insured is accepted and that the loss was assessed by the licensed surveyor deputed by the insurance company and on the basis of the afore said survey report the opposite party offered a sum of Rs.4,840/- towards the loss/damage. But the complainant/insured was not amenable for the aforesaid amount. Hence he filed the complaint. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to certain extent and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the insurance claim with future interest at the rate of 14.5% and the cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party/insurance company. 3. When the appeal is taken up for disposal there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal. Thus the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order dated.4.12.02 passed by the forum below in O.P.612/2000. 4. The points for consideration are:- Whether the appellant/ insurance company can be justified in offering a sum of Rs.4,840/- towards loss/damages sustained by the complainant/insured? Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in settling the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant? Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.612/2000? 5. Points 1 to 3:- We will refer the parties to this appeal according to their status before the forum below in OP.612/2000.
6. There is no dispute that the complainant as the owner of the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01/K-2188 submitted the insurance claim with respect to the afore said vehicle which met with an accident on 27.8.98. Admittedly there was an existing policy of insurance with respect to the afore said vehicle owned by the complainant. The fact that the vehicle sustained damage in the said accident is not disputed. It is the case of the complainant as insured that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been estimated as the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle. On the other hand, the opposite party/insurance company offered only Rs.4,840/- as the loss or damage to the insured vehicle. 7. Before the lower forum the complainant produced P1 to P17 documents. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party/insurance company. It is to be noted that in the written version the opposite party has mentioned about the two survey reports submitted by the licensed surveyors. It is very strange to note that the opposite party/insurance company failed to produce the aforesaid survey reports said to have been submitted by licensed surveyors. It is contended by the opposite party/insurance company that as per the first survey report dt. 13.7.98 the loss of the vehicle was assessed at Rs.6,675/- and the second surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.6,384/- But the afore said surveyor are not forthcoming from the side of the opposite party/insurance company. So, we are not in a position to evaluate the afore said survey reports in order to assess the actual loss to the insured. Another aspect to be noted is that the opposite party/insurance company had only offered Rs.4,840/- towards insurance claim. Nothing is stated in the written version as to how they made deduction from the loss assessed by the surveyors and fixed the insurance claim at Rs.4,840/- . The method adopted by the opposite party/insurance company would make it clear that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/insurance company. 8. The documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant would justify the claim of Rs.30,000/-. Exts.P16 is the labour charge claimed by the repairer by name Friends Auto Mobiles. As per P16 the labour charge would come to Rs.15,000/- The other bills produced from the side of the complainant would show that he incurred more amounts for purchasing spare parts to rectify the damage caused to the insured vehicle. P3 quotation dated.3.7.98 submitted by Friends Auto Mobiles would also give an idea about the damage caused to the vehicle. The other documents produced from the side of the complainant would make it clear that the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.30,000/- for getting the damaged vehicle repaired. It is true that the complainant has not considered the depreciation to the damaged parts. The forum below has considered all those relevant aspects and thereby assessed the loss or damage at Rs.15,000/- The evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. The opposite party/insurance company has not adduced any evidence in support of the contentions taken in their written version. We are of the view that the forum below is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss/damage to the vehicle. 9. The complainant/respondent claimed compensation over and above the actual loss/damage. But the forum below rightly rejected the aforesaid claim for compensation. 10. The forum below has also awarded interest at the rate of 14.5% with cost of Rs.1000/-. We are of the view that the rate of interest ordered by the forum below is on the higher side. Considering the rate of interest prevailed at the relevant time the future interest is fixed at 12% per annum. We do not find any ground to interfere with the cost of Rs.1000/- ordered by the forum below. So the impugned order is modified to the extent that the rate of interest at 14.5% is reduced to 12% per annum. In all other aspects the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is upheld. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is disposed as indicated above. Thereby the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/complainant by way of the insurance claim with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost of Rs.1000/-. The appellant/opposite party is liable to pay the future interest from the date of the impugned order (4.12.02) passed by the forum below in OP.612/2000. As far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
RAV | 
