KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:174/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:27..2..2008. PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOAHN NAIR : MEMBER United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-1, L.M.S.Compound, Thiruvananthapuram. Repd. By its : APPELLANT Senior Divisional Manager- Francis Joseph. (By Adv: Sri.R.Jagadish Kumar) V. S. Thulasidharan, Sajeendra Bhavan, Avanakuzhi, Manaluvila, Thannimoodu.P.O, : RESPONDENT Thiruvananthapuram District. (By Adv: Sri.V.Madhuripan Pillai) JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred by the opposite parties before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:454/2001. The respondent herein filed the complaint in OP:454/2001 for the insurance amount based on the theft of insured vehicle owned by the complainant. The claim was not honoured by the opposite party/insurance company stating that the complainant/insured has to produce the order from the Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also contended that the complainant is only entitled to get the market value of the vehicle on the date of the peril. The Forum below on an appreciation of the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant allowed the aforesaid complaint in OP:454/2001 directing the opposite party/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.18,500/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. Interest also awarded at the rate of 9% per annum, in the event of the failure to pay the said sum of Rs.18,500/- within two months. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2.We heard the counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party/insurance company submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the Appeal. It is submitted that the insured vehicle was used by the complainant (insured) for his profession as a milk vendor and so the value of the vehicle was got reduced by the lapse of few months. It is further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the insurance company because of the fact that the complainant as insured failed to produce the order from the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court regarding theft of the vehicle. Thus, the appellant/insurance company requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. 3.The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellant/opposite party/insurance company can be justified in not honouring the insurance claim made by the respondent/complainant (insured)? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:4..2..2004 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:454/2001? POINTS 1 AND 2:- There is no dispute that the respondent as insured had taken the policy of insurance from the appellant/insurance company with respect to his vehicle bearing Registration No:KL-01-H-3612 Bajaj M-80. The definite case of the complainant is that the aforesaid insured vehicle was stolen on the night of 3..7..1997. The documentary evidence adduced from the side of the respondent/complainant would substantiate this case regarding theft of the vehicle. Ext.P3 FIR dated:8..7..1997, P4 mahazar dated:9..7..1997. P6 final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara and P8 certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Neyyattinkara would make it clear that the aforesaid vehicle which was insured with the appellant/insurance company was stolen on the night of 3..7..1997. There is no basis for insisting the complainant/insured to get an order from the concerned Magistrate Court. It is also to be noted that it will take a long time to get a final order passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court with respect to theft of the vehicle. It is quite unreasonable to ask the insured to wait for the insurance claim for such a long period. It is to be noted at this juncture that for passing a final order in a theft case years may be taken. So, the appellant/opposite party/insurance company cannot be justified in delaying the matter on the sole ground that the insured failed to produce the final order from a Court of law. On the other hand, the other criminal case records produced from the side of the complainant are sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was theft of the vehicle owned by the complainant and the police could not trace it out. It is also to be noted that till this time the vehicle could not be traced out. The appellant/insurance company has no case that subsequent to the theft of 3..7..1997 the vehicle was detected by the police or any other authority. So, the Forum below is fully justified in directing the opposite party/insurance company to pay the value of the insured vehicle which was lost in theft. 5.The next aspect for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. It is to be noted that the insured vehicle was manufactured in the year 1996 and the same was registered in the year 1997. The vehicle was insured with the appellant/opposite party/insurance company on 6..5..1997 and the said insured vehicle was stolen on 3..7..1997. Thus, on the date of the peril, the insured vehicle was only two months old. It is to be noted that the estimated value of the insured vehicle was Rs.18,000/-. The complainant as insured has also claimed Rs.18,000/- towards the value of the insured vehicle. But unfortunately the Forum below committed mistake in fixing the value of the vehicle at Rs.18,500/-. So, the aforesaid mistake crept into the impugned order passed by the Forum below can be corrected as Rs.18,000/-. 6.It is a settled position that the Insurance Company being the insurer of the vehicle is only bound to pay the market value of the vehicle on the date of the peril. But unfortunately the appellant/opposite party/insurance company totally failed to plead and prove their case regarding the market value of the vehicle. It is to be noted that the opposite party/insurance company in their written version filed before the Forum below has made a vague statement that the complainant is only entitled for market value of 1997 model vehicle. But they have not given the actual market value of that type of the vehicle. Admittedly the estimated value as per the policy is Rs.18,000/-. Considering the fact that on the date of the peril the insured vehicle was only two months old, there cannot be any depreciation in the value of the insured vehicle. The respondent/complainant is entitled to get Rs.18,000/- representing the market value of the insured vehicle, on the date of the peril. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the opposite party/insurance company is only liable to pay Rs.18,000/-. The amount of Rs.18,500/- is corrected as Rs.18,000/-. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is disposed of as indicated above. The appellant/opposite party/insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant by way of the value of the insured vehicle with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The aforesaid sum of Rs.18,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, after two months from the date of the impugned order passed by the Forum below (4..2..2004). As far as the present appeal is concerned, parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. | 
