KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

               VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                 APPEAL NO.82/06

                             JUDGMENT DATED 15.9.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                            --  MEMBER

N.T.Babu.

S/0 N.T.Thomas, Proprietor,

Toy Palace, Court Road,                             --  APPELLANT

Palakkad.                               

   (By Adv.k.Balachandran & Ors.)

                    Vs.

The Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.                 --  RESPONDENT

Surya Complex, T.B.Road,

Palakkad.

   (By Adv.P.A.Reziya)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in OP.198/03 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad.  The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/United India Insurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs.4,92,000/-.  The opposite party offered only Rs.44,000/-.  Aggrieved by the repudiation of the said claim made by the complainant, the OP.198/03 was filed.  The opposite party/Insurance Company entered appearance and submitted that the loss was assessed by the approved surveyor and the loss was assessed at Rs.44,000/-.  It was also contended that the insurance policy was taken for commercial purpose.  Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2.  Before the Forum below, A1 to A12 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite party/Insurance Company.  Ext.X1 statement of accounts produced by South Indian Bank, Palakkad  was also marked.   On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below dismissed the complaint in OP.198/03 by finding that the issue involved in the complaint could not be disposed of in a summary manner and so the parties to the said compliant were relegated to  Civil Court.   It is against the aforesaid impugned order dated 26^th November 2005 passed by CDRF, Palakkad in OP.198/03, the present appeal is preferred.

          3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/opposite party.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant.  He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and canvassed for the position that the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.198/03.  Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for remanding the matter to the Forum below.

          4. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant was running hardware cum stationary shop and the said shop was insured with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company.  The complaint in OP.198/03 was filed before the Forum below on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Company in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs.4,92,000/-.  It is to be noted that there occurred a peril on 20.4.03 and damage was caused to the said shop owned by the appellant/complainant.  The opposite party/Insurance Company deputed a surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor submitted the B1 survey report assessing loss at Rs.44,000/-.  The main dispute was regarding the quantum of the loss suffered by the appellant/complainant/insured.  So, the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the complaint in OP.198/03.  A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Forum below would make it clear that the Forum below has gone wrong in relagating the parties to the said complaint to  Civil Court.  In fact, the Forum below was bound to entertain the dispute involved in the aforesaid complaint in OP.198/03.  It is a settled position that the dispute regarding quantum of loss suffered by an insured can be entertained by the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  So, this is a fit case to be remitted back to the Forum below for consideration of the complaint therein on merits.  The Forum below is directed to dispose of the matter on merits.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 26.11.05 passed by CDRF, Palakkad in OP.198/03 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Forum below for fresh disposal of the same on merits.  The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 29.10.2010.  They have    to suffer their respective costs.

 M.V.VISWANATHAN          --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER

s/L