D.o.F: 7/11/09

D.o.O:05/4/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.249/09

                        Dated this, the 05^th  day of April 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

Binoy  Alex,

S/o Alexabder, Poriyath House,

Vallikkadavu,Malom,Parappa Via,Kasaragod.         : Complainant

(Adv.M.Mathew Varghese,Hosdurg)

The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Thara Building,Nileshwar Po,                                   : Opposite party       

Nileshwar,Hosdurg.Kasaragod

(Adv.C.Damodaran,Kasaragod)              

                                                                           ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ        : PRESIDENT

    The case of the complainant in brief is that as against the insurance claim for the damages sustained to his shop in an attack by some miscreants, the claim submitted to the opposite party rejected on the ground that the loss assessed was less than Rs.10,000/-.  According to the complainant the total loss caused  was Rs.35821/-.  Hence the complaint claiming compensation and costs.

2.  According to opposite party, the amount is offered as per the loss estimated by the surveyor subject to the policy excess.  The policy excess as per the shop keeper policy issued to the complainant is Rs.10, 000/- Amount of loss above Rs.10,000/-alone is payable.  Upto Rs.10,000/- the shopkeeper has to bear the loss.

3.    Complainant filed proof affidavit and faced cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite party.  Exts.A1 to A5 marked.  On the side of opposite party Exts.B1 & B2 marked.  Both sides heard and the documents perused.

4.     Ext.B2 is the surveyor’s report.  As per the report it is seen that the surveyor has omitted to assess a number of items on the ground that it is not reported to the police. 

That is no way justifiable and there is no law that to claim the damages as per shopkeeper’s policy, one has to report the details of damage to the police.  The intention of information given to the police is to set the criminal law in motion and the  police is not an authority to verify or assess the losses sustained in the criminal action to compensate the victim.   Hence the rejection of compensation relying on an incompletely assessed surveyors report, that omits to assess the damages caused to the articles on the ground that it is not reported to the police is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The surveyor has excluded Rs.4921/- on the ground that  plate glass is not covered.  That is also against the policy condition.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for that amount.

5.   In the survey report, the surveyors has not taken in to account the items worth Rs.25600/- on the ground that those loss were not reported to the police.  The complainant is entitled to get the said amount in addition to the amount the surveyor assessed  ie.Rs.3000/- subject to policy excess Rs.10,000/-.  So the total amount the complainant entitled to get  Rs.30521+ 3000 –10,000 = 23521/-.

    Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a  sum of Rs.23,500/-( Rupees  twenty three thousand five hundred only) with a cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @12%  for  Rs.23500/-( Rupees twenty  three thousand five hundred  only) from the date of complaint till payment.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

Exts:

A1-policy

A2-9/4/08- lawyer notice

A3-19/4/08-reply notice

A4-21/11/07-Copy of FIR

A5-13/11/07- Copy of Mahazar report

B1-Claim form

B2- Survey report

PW1-Baiju Alex-complainant

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

eva/