KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMAPPEAL 295/2006JUDGMENT DATED 6.2.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Branch Manager, : APPELLANT United India Insurance Company Ltd., P.B.No.5, Prakash Builidngs, T.B.Junction, Thodupuzha. (By Adv.Lakshmanan.T.J) vs. Shaji Joseph, S/o Iype Varghese, : RESPONDENT Kochukudiyil House, East Kaloor.P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Co. in CC.173/05 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.The appellant is under orders to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis and to pay Rs.1500/- towards cost within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the opposite party is to pay Rs.88206/- as claimed. 2. The case of the complainant is that the jeep owned by him and insured with the appellant met with an accident on 18.11.2004. The vehicle hit against a compound wall. A sum of Rs.84206/- was paid towards repairing charges and a sum of Rs.4000/- was paid to the owner of the compound wall. The claim was repudiated alleging that the vehicle was carrying more passengers than permitted. It is contended that extra passengers did not contribute in the happening of the accident. 3. In the version of the opposite party it is contended that there was clear policy violation as more passengers than permitted was travelling in the vehicle. Hence the claim was repudiated. An independent surveyor has assessed the loss only as Rs.24000/- and hence the liability if any is limited to Rs.24,000/-. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, DW1; Exts.P1 to P4 and R1 to R4. 5. On a perusal of the documents produced we find that there is no objective evidence as such with respect to the contention that the vehicle carried 7 passengers although the permissible capacity is only 6 vide Ext.P1 copy of the RC book. All the same it appears that the contention of the complainant is that alleged policy violation did not contribute in the occurrence of the accident. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum ordered to settle the claim on non standard basis. The Forum has not considered the report of the surveyor who has assessed the liability as only Rs.24000/-. The complainant has produced photocopies of the bills with respect to the spare parts and labour charges and the receipt with respect to the payment of Rs.4000/- to the property owner of the compound wall that was hit by the jeep. The complainant has not filed any appeal. In the circumstances we find that the above finding is not liable to be disturbed, as there is no objective evidence that the vehicle carrying more passengers. The appellant has contended that in the light of the policy violation the appellant is not liable to honour the claim. As mentioned above the contention of the appellant is liable to be rejected. 6. The surveyor vide Ext.R1 survey report has suggested only Rs.24,000/-. The appellant/opposite party has not produced the original bills etc submitted by the complainant. The survey report only mentions the names of the spare parts and the amount approved and disallowed. The columns with respect to the amount granted it is mentioned as 35% and 50% which appears is the value of the spares reduced towards depreciation. It has also to be noted that the vehicle is 2000 model Mahindra jeep. The Surveyor has noted the damages sustained in detail. The same would show that many important parts of the vehicle has been totally damaged. Twenty three items are noted as damages. The damages sustained to the above parts would show that the same has to be replaced. The parts have been noted as crumbled, twisted, cut/sheared. For example, it is noted that radiator and fan leaf has cracked and twisted; starter motor assembly is cracked/bent and twisted, gear box mounting (big) is torn. The same is the case with the rest of the parts including front and rear leaf assembly; shock absorbers etc. The amount assessed by the surveyor including labour charges is only Rs.24000/-. Evidently the surveyor has underestimated the cost of spares and labour charges. Out of the labour charges claimed as Rs.36700/-, only Rs.13500/- has been allowed. OnlyRs.11742/- has been granted towards cost of spares. The claim based on bills is Rs.65568.83/-. The photographs produced along with the survey report also would show that the vehicle has sustained very serious damages. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum to pay 75% of the claim amount is only reasonable. It has also to be noted that there is no order to pay interest. In the circumstance we find that no interference is called for in the order of the Forum. In the result the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
