KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.390/04 JUDGMENT DATED.6.10.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, P.B.No.3806, Sarada Shopping Complex, -- APPELLANT Mullackal, Alappuzha rep. by Senior Divisional Manager Francis Joseph, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-1, LMS Compoud, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Jagadish Kumar) Vs. Sri.Ra,cjamdram Mair.C.V, Ayillium House, Muhamma.P.O, -- RESPONDENT Cherthala. (Amaravila P.Venugopalan Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.No.8/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the complaint and Rs.300/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Bajaj Tembo Maxi Cab owned by him was insured with the opposite party with the declared value of Rs.1,30,000/-.The vehicle was stolen on 14.2.2000. The appellant paid only Rs.70,000/-. He has sought for the balance amount that he is entitled as per the declared value. 3. It is contended by the opposite parties/appellants that the amount was received in full and final settlement of the claim. It is further submitted that the surveyor appointed had assessed the market value of the stolen vehicle and the same was paid. It is contended that as the amount has been received full and final settlement the complainant is not entitled to claim more. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts P1 to P4 and Exts.B1 to B5. 5. The Forum has held that in view of Ext P4 agreement dated 10.1.2000 for the sale of the vehicle between the complainant one C. K. Vijayakumar wherein the price of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.1,35,000/- the opposite party is liable to pay the insured declared value ie. Rs.1,30,000/-. 6. As submitted by the counsel for the appellant, the amount was received in full and final settlement on 10.11.2000. The complaint is filed on 2.1.02. There is nothing to indicate that the complainant received the amount on account of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or other similar circumstances. The complainant has also not sent any lawyer notice etc. immediately after receipt of the amount and executing the voucher in full and final settlement. 7. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant is not entitled to claim the further amount after the lapse of more than one year. Further, the complainant is only entitled to held the market value of the vehicle as on the date of the theft. It is brought out that the vehicle is of 1992 model. Surveyor has assessed the market value as in between Rs.65,000/- and 75,000/- for 1992 model. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for Rs.1,30,000/- as claimed. We find that in the above circumstances, the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
