IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2016
Filed on 17.01.2014
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.21/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Joseph. T. Varghese The Manager, United India Insurance M.V. Stores Branch Office, Changanacherry
Market, Edathua Thottuparambil Buildings
(By Adv. Vinod Varghese) M.C. Road, Changanacherry
(By Adv. T.S. Suresh)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant obtained a shop keeper’s policy from the opposite party for the period from 6.2.2010 to 5.2.2011. On 3.11.2010 a theft occurred in his shop room and the goods valued more than Rs.1 lakh were stolen. The complainant informed the theft to the opposite party on 4.11.2010. Almost Rs.75,000/- cigarettes were also stolen from the shop. The surveyor of the opposite party inspected the premises after a long time. In spite of the repeated requests, the complainant has not received the insured amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The information regarding the theft is delayed by the insured. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected the shop room on 4.12.2010 to assess the alleged damage. The complainant has not produced important document to the surveyor to complete the survey. Even though he had demanded the said document several times the complainant has not taken up. Hence the opposite party is not in a position to complete the survey and also not in a position to settle the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. The surveyor was examined as RW2.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the complainant, he had taken a shop keeper’s policy from the opposite party for the period from 6.2.2010 to 5.2.2011. Opposite party has no objection with regard to the policy issued to the complainant. On 3.11.2010 there was a theft in his shop room and according to the complainant, the goods valued more than Rs.1 lakh were stolen from the shop. The complainant further stated that he informed the matter to the police and also to the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the final report of the Crime No.340/10 submitted by the Edathua Police. In Ext.A3 it is clearly stated that a theft was occurred in the shop room of the complainant on 3.11.2010 and the cigarettes valued for Rs.47,000/- were stolen from the shop room. According to the opposite party, complainant had committed delay in informing the theft to the opposite party. Hence the surveyor deputed by the opposite party inspected the premises only on 10.12.2010 and the complainant has not produced any important documents required by the surveyor to complete the survey. Ext.B1 is the letter issued by the surveyor dated 10.12.2010 to the complainant demanding to furnish some documents. Opposite party further stated that in the absence of documents demanded by them, they are not in a position to settle the claim. Complainant denied this contention and stated that he has entrusted all the required documents to the agent of the opposite party. It is pertinent to notice that complainant has not taken any steps to examine the said agent as his witness. Moreover he has not even sent any reply against the Ext.B1 letter. Complainant produced document like Day Book, Stock Register, Purchase bills. But he has not made any effort to prove the stock remaining before the day of theft and after the day of theft. As per Ext.A3, it is clear that a theft was committed in the shop room of the complainant on 3.11.2010. It also shows that a per the report of the Police, the cigarettes valued for Rs.47,000/- were stolen from the shop room. No reliable documents produced by the complainant to prove that the goods valued more than Rs.1 lakh were stolen from the shop room. In the absence of any documents to prove the value of the goods stolen by the complainant, we are of considered opinion that complainant is entitled to get Rs.47,000/- from the opposite party. The denial on the part of the opposite party in paying the amount, amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.47,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the complainant with 9% interest from 3.11.2010 till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 31st of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Joseph. T. Varghese (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the stock register
Ext.A2 - Copy of the day book
Ext.A3 - Copy of the final report
Ext.A4 - Purchase bills for the period from 1.11.2010 to 11.11.2010
Ext.A5 - Copy of the tax return
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bindu.B. (Witness)
RW2 - Binu Varkey (Witness)
Ext.B1 - True copy of the letter dated 10.12.2010
Ext.B2 - Copy of the letter dated 2.7.2013
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:
