IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 29th day of November, 2010
Filed on 07.04.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.156/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.T.R.Trideepkumar, Proprietor, The Branch Manager,
M/s.C.C.C. Super Market, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Puthenchantha, Thuravoor.P.O, Branch Office, Puthenpurackal Chambers,
Cherthala, Alappuzha. Pallurithy, Cochin.
(By Adv.B.Jayamohan) (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the proprietor of the CCC Super market that deals with electrical and electronic goods. The said shop was insured with the opposite party under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy Scheme for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lacs only). On 25th August 2003, a theft was committed in the complainant's shop and the complainant lost articles worth Rs.2,23,500/-(Rupees two lacs twenty three thousand five hundred only). The opposite party was duly intimated. The surveyors and the investigators of the opposite party visited the spot the very next day. The police registered a case. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,23,500/-(Rupees two lacs twenty three thousand five hundred only) the sum he lost by way of theft. The complainant produced all relevant documents before the opposite party. The opposite party vide letter dated 26th February 2007 informed the complainant that they had sought a re-investigation by higher police officials into the offence committed in the shop of the complainant. On 2nd August 2008 the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party. The complainant again, vide letter dated 19th March 2009 sought clarification from the opposite party as to his claim. There was no any sort of response from the opposite party. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. As per the opposite party, the claim file was closed on 31st March 2005. According to the opposite party's surveyor report, there was no any sign of burglary. Most of the items in the shop belonged to Deepthi appliances which are not covered by the policy. The complainant did not answer properly to most of the queries by the surveyor. Investigation by the independent investigator endorsed the view of the surveyor. The police records of the crime contradict the statement of the complainant. Still for the satisfaction of the complainant and for transparency of the issue, the opposite party sought re-investigation vide letter 26th February 2007 which yielded no result. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party acted in line with the policy conditions. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party affirms.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbt A1 to A14 were marked. Exbts A1 to A5 are certified copies of police records, Exbts. A7, A9, A12 Al3 are letters from the opposite party, Exbts. A8,10,11,14 are the copy of the letters the complainant issued to the opposite party. On the side of the opposite party the manager of the opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbt B1 to B5 were marked. Exbt B1 is the policy, B2 is the claim submitted by the complainant, B3 is the survey report, B4 is the investigation report and B5 is the copy of the letter of repudiation.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Concededly, the complainant availed a policy from the opposite party for his shop. We feel it appropriate to go initially to the question of limitation, prior to probing into other contentions raised by the parties. The incident allegedly took place on 25th August 2003. The opposite party claimed to have closed the claim file on 31st March 2005. Thereafter, as per the opposite party itself Exbt B5 repudiation letter dated 26th February 2007 was sent to the complainant. Indisputably the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 2nd August 2008. In view of the above facts, the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is time-barred suffers from stuff or substance. Prying into the merit of this case, the contention of the opposite party is that no any such burglary or theft as alleged by the complainant occurred in the complainant’s shop. For this, the opposite party relies on the Exbt B3 & B4 surveyor and investigation report. Even though the reports appears to have been filed, the persons who prepared the said reports were not examined nor their affidavit had not been got filed. Needless to say the aforesaid documents lack evidentiary value, and hence do not merit acceptance. Exbt B5 letter shows that the opposite party seeking out transparency regarding the alleged burglary approached higher police officials for re-investigation. The said conduct itself of the opposite party is suggestive of the fact that the opposite party is still searching out materials to rebut the case of the complainant that the goods were stolen from his shop on 25th August 2003. Or it is to be presumed that the attempts of the opposite party to refute the complainant case have lost or not pursued midway. We have no hesitation to hold that no evidence worth the name has been let in by the opposite party to rebut the case advanced by the complainant. Thus when the complainant case has not been rebutted by the opposite party, this Forum has no other course open but to accept the version put forth by the complainant.
In the light of the facts and circumstance discussed herein above the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,23,500/-(Rupees two lacs twenty three thousand five hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of his application for claim till the recovery of the said amount. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - T.R.Trideepkumar (Witness)
Ext. A1-A5 - The certified copies of police records
Ext.A6 - Policy Schedule - Shop keepers Insurance
Ext.A7,9,12,13 - The letters from the opposite party
Ext.A8,10,11,14 - The copy of the letters the complainant issued to the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Punnoose.K.K (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The policy
Ext. B2 - The claim submitted by the complainant
Ext. B3 - The survey report
Ext. B4 - The investigation report
Ext. B5 - The copy of the letter of repudiation
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
