KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM           

 APPEAL NO.338/09

JUDGMENT DATED 30.5.2011

PRESENT

 JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU               --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

A.P.Kuttappan,

Central School Road,

P.O, Edat (East).                                                --  APPELLANT

(via) Payyannur,

Kannur.

  (By Adv.Premalatha)

                   Vs.

1.      The Branch Manager                                                                                New India Assurance Company Ltd;

2.      Payyannur, Kannur.

The Divisional Manager,                           --  RESPONDENTS

New India Assurance Company Ltd;

Payyannur, Kannur.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

          The order dated 2/3/09 of CDRF, Kannur in CC.No.159/03 is assailed in this appeal by the complainant himself who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below.  It is his very case that the Forum below ought to have allowed the complaint in toto.

2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is the owner of a motorbike which is insured with the first opposite party for the period from 8.7.02 to 7.7.03 and that the vehicle met with an accident on 21.2.03.   It is his grievance  that though a claim form for a sum of Rs.12,750/- was placed before the opposite parties, the sum was not allowed and instead only a meager sum of Rs.3,760/- was sanctioned and the amount being too low he refused to accept the sum and the complaint was instituted for directions to the opposite party to settle the claim for the amount of Rs.12,750/- with compensation and costs.

          3. Resisting the complaint, opposite parties filed version contending that though the claim was for Rs.12,750/-, the surveyor had assessed only a sum of Rs.4210/- and deducting the salvage value a sum of Rs.3,760/- was offered to the complainant which the complainant himself had rejected.  Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1, the complainant and a witness as PW2 and Exts.A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant.  On the side of the opposite parties DW1 & 2 were examined and the survey report was marked as Ext.B1.

          5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the dismissal of the complaint by  the Forum below is without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct perspective.  It is his very case that even the Branch Manager who was examined as DW1 had admitted that the repairs done on the vehicle were essential and that if the complainant had done the works at a stretch there could have been the possibility of granting the requested amount.  It is also argued by him that the surveyor had not properly assessed the damage that occurred to the vehicle due to the accident.  He has also banked upon the deposition of PW2 who has stated that an amount of Rs.12,750/- was spent by the complainant for the repairs as per the quotation given by him.   Thus, the learned counsel canvassed for the position that the appeal is to be allowed, thereby allowing the claim put forward in the complaint.

          6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is admitted by both sides that the complainant had an insurance policy with the opposite party and that the vehicle had met with an accident on 21.2.03.  The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that he had carried out repairs for an amount of Rs.12,750/- and   he is entitled for the said amount.  On the other hand, the opposite parties would contend that the complainant had not adduced any evidence to show that  the repairs as stated by him were carried out.  However, the opposite parties were ready to pay the amount of Rs.3,760/- which is the amount after deducting salvage value from the surveyor’s assessment.  We have gone through the survey report marked as Ext.B1.  It is seen that the surveyor had assessed a sum of Rs.4,210/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs.500/-.  We find that it was not proper on the side of the opposite party to deduct a  further amount from the amount assessed by the surveyor as net amount to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.  It is also seen that the  amount is not so far been paid by the opposite parties.  We find that the complainant is entitled to a  sum of Rs.4,210/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  The complainant is also entitled for  cost of Rs.2000/- which is to be paid by the opposite parties.

          7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, thereby the appellant/complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,210/- with 9 % interest from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.2000/-.  The amounts are  to be paid by the opposite parties/respondents  within one month from the  date of receipt of a  copy of this order, failing which the amount so arrived at  shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till payment.

          The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the forum below urgently.

  S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR – MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -  PRESIDENT