FA   852/2007  in CD No.673/2004  on the file of the

 District Forum II, Visakhapatnam

Between :

Dasari Appa Rao, S/o Byragi

Aged about 44 years, Manager

USSR Cinema Theatre, Main Road,

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam                     … Appellant/complainant

And

1.                  The Branch Manager

United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Branch Office, Main Road, Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam.

2.                  The Divisional Manager

United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Visakhapatnam                         .. Respondents/Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant            :           Mr. A. Rajendra Babu

Counsel for the Respondents    :           M/s. N. V. Jagannath.

Coram           ;           Sri Syed Abdullah              …        Hon’ble Member

And

Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

Friday, the Sixteenth   Day of July, Two Thousand Ten

Oral Order           :           ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah,  Hon’ble Member )

*******

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum II,  Visakhapatnam in C. D 673/2004, this appeal is filed  claiming enhancement of compensation  as claimed. 

The facts of the case disclose that the complainant purchased a Peugeot Car  bearing No. AP 50 1407 of 1998 Model ( diesel) which was insured from time to time.  Policy bearing No. 150303/31/02761 along with Transfer Endorsement  was obtained by the complainant  and the insurance was valid during the period from 08.10.2002   to 26.08.2003.  while so, on 21.08.2003 the said vehicle was taken by one Ganta Rajendra Prasad to go to his Garden. When the said vehicle reached garden at 6.45 PM, the said person found  that smell was emanating from the car.  So he opened the bonnet  and  rushed to the water tank to control the smoke.   He also informed  to the Fire Station, Yelamanchili and then contacted the Village Administrative officer.  In the mean while, police came to the spot  but the entire vehicle was caught fire  and resulting  in extensive damage  to the vehicle.  Police registered a case  and referred the case as “ mistake of fact “.  After obtaining necessary certificate  from the Fire Officer for the fire accident, he applied to the opposite party furnishing relevant documents for settling the insurance claim. A surveyor was appointed but no action was taken.  The complainant was vexed with the attitude  of the opposite party and he was forced to give a consent letter on 21.10.2003 so that  he will receive payment within short time. By mis-representation the opposite party obtained his consent letter yet they have not settled the claim. Hence the opposite parties are attributed with deficiency in service.

The opposite parties  1 and 2 resisted the claim though admitted that the policy was issued  and that it was transferred in the name of the complainant, so also, its validity.   The other allegations are denied.   It is stated that an independent surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to a tune of Rs.1,34,000/-.  Motor surveyor also gave true value of the insured car  which is fixed at Rs.1,15,000/-. After elaborate work outs and considering the pros and cons the claim was  fixed to a tune of Rs.99,000/-.  The OP 1  has given no claim bonus while renewing the policy of the said vehicle  which is to a tune of Rs.10,029/- which was administrative mistake. So the said amount to be recovered from the complainant  and after deduction of the said amount, the complainant is entitled to assessment of loss at Rs.88,971/-. The discharge voucher was sent to the complainant on 26.08.2004 requesting him to return the same  duly signed.  Though it was received by the complainant he kept quiet.  The claim was processed as per the terms and conditions  of the policy but he has not come forward and willing to settle the claim and thereby prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 During enquiry,. The complainant along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A-1 to A7 and similarly the opposite parties 1 and 2  along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. B-1 to B-6.   On considering the same, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties having estimated the loss and delayed in paying the same which amounts to deficiency in service  and thereby directed them to pay a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- with interest at 9% pa from 04.11.2003 till the date of payment and also damages of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-. 

The opposite parties have not contested the order but the complainant had filed this appeal questioning  the legality and propriety of the order  on the sole ground  that the vehicle was insured for Rs. 4 lakhs.  While so,  the loss as estimated by the surveyor  and the compensation awarded is meager. 

The facts are not in dispute  that the vehicle in question was  insured for Rs. Four lakhs for which policy was issued and that it was burnt in the fire accident. The Opposite parties have  not denied  that the vehicle in question was damaged due to  accidental fire.   The fact that it was caught by fire  is supported by the documentary evidence issued  by the Village Administrative officer and as well by the concerned  Fire officer.   It is also not in dispute that the spot surveyor and later the final surveyor had assessed the value of the vehicle.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question is of 1998 old model and it is a  second hand model. As the vehicle was insured for Rs.4 lakhs, the appellant/complainant’s contention is that  the total insured value is to be paid to him.  Merely because, the entire vehicle was damaged due to fire accident, the appellant/complainant cannot claim for  total value of the insured amount. when it is of 1998 model, it was subject to wear and tear  all the while up-to-date of accident in 2003 the true value will be reduced. The complainant  himself has not produced any evidence to show as to the true value of the vehicle on the date of accident.  On the other hand,  the opposite parties have appointed a Motor Insurance Surveyor  by name R. Srinivasa Rao who has furnished true market value of the car and fixed  it at Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant himself admits that he had given a consent letter for settling the claim to a tune of Rs.1,34,000/-. If he says that the said letter was obtained  under mis-representation or coercion he has to prove it.   The opposite parties  having obtained a consent letter from the complainant  they should have settled the claim immediately by sending a cheque  and in case signed voucher was to be 0sent by the complainant and  he himself  had delayed  they should have sent  a notice but they did not do so all the while till a complaint was  filed  by the complaint.  Apart from it,  the opposite parties have insisted to deduct a sum of Rs.10,029/-  which they failed to collect at the time of renewal of the policy, which is their own failure for which  the complainant cannot suffer.   They cannot deduct  a sum of Rs.10,029/- from out of the estimated value.  As observed by the District Forum, the opposite parties have tested the patience in not settling the claim and they drove him to file a complaint before the District Forum.  The District Forum has rightly passed the  order directing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/-  with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-.   The complainant failed to substantiate as to how  he is entitled  for more compensation than what is fixed by the District Forum. The appeal is devoid of merits.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum II, Visakhapatnam  in C.D. 673/2004 dated 28.02.2007. No order as to costs in the appeal.

Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/- MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                        DATED :        16.07.2010