KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 570/05 JUDGMENT DATED. 19.8.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Manager, : APPELLANTs National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Kollannur Devassy Smaraka Building, Road East, Thrissur – 680 001. 2. Managing Director, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office.3, Middleton Street, Calcutta – 700 071. (By Adv. Saji Isaac.K.J) Vs. T.M.Joseph, :RESPONDENT Thekkayil House, Kallayi, Veluppadam.P.O.,Thrissur. (By Adv.P.G.Suresh) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the file of OP.No.410/02 dated 9.5..05. Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above OP. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.86,500/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum from 28.8.01 till realization, Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. This is a dispute in connection with the insurance claim claimed by the complainant for his Mahindra jeep registration No.KL8L7182. The vehicle insured by the appellants/opposite parties against any loss or damage to the vehicle by accident, theft etc. The verity of the insurance for the period from 4.9.99 to 3.9.2000. The vehicle was stolen and not recovered by the police. The 1st appellant settled the insurance claim and paid Rs.2,59,000/- towards loss. But according to the complainant he has entitled to get Rs.3,45,500/- being insurance amount. The complainant accepted the settled amount without any protest. He later approached the 1st respondent/appellant many occasions but they did not reopened the matter. So the complainant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.86,500/- to the loss as per the insurance contract. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that they are only liable to pay market value of the vehicle as on the date of the occurrence. They deputed a surveyor for assessed the actual market value of the vehicle and it was assessed as Rs.2,75,000/-, Rs.2,70,000/-, 2,60,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/- respectively. They agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- after reducing the compulsory excess of Rs.1000/-. This was the amount of Rs.2,59,000/- the petitioner also agreed to settle the matter for a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- then contended that the complainant also executed a subrogation letter on 22.2.02 undertaking the subrogation of their rights in default of the insurance company to recover the loss. The complainant received Rs.2,59,000 by cheques towards full satisfaction of the entire pay. Hence the matter was settled finally, the petitioner is not entitled to get any further relief and the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P6 and Ext.R1 to R11. there is no oral evidence by both sides. 5. After considering the entire evidence the Forum below found that the complainant was entitled to get entire amount he claimed and allowed the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.86500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.8.01 till realization, Rs.2000 towards compensation and Rs.1000 as cost. 6. This impugned order was challenged. On this day this appeal came before this Commission the counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with law and evidence. They are only entitled to give the market value of the jeep assessed by the surveyor and further contended that the cheque was received by the complainant without any protest for the further claim was estopped by the law hence this appeal is liable to be allowed and to be set aside the impugned order. We are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the law and evidence and it is not legally sustainable the complainant is only entitled to get only market value which assessed by the surveyor of the appellants/company. His further claim was estopped by the law estoppel. How the complainant is claiming the show room price after elapse of long period In the result this appeal is allowed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
