BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.855 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.235 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM WARANGAL
Between:
Dr.V.V.N.Sastry S/o late Vyakaranam Sastry
A/a 70 yrs, Occ: Medical Practitioner
R/o H.No.2-5-32, Ashwini Clinic
Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal-001
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
11/1582, P.B.No.75, M.Road
Pochamma Maidan, Warangal-002
Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. `5,900/-as per the terms
2. `5,900/- . The appellant claimed cost of the anode tube and repair charges of the X-ray unit.
3. 4. `1,500/- and assessing depreciation at 90%, it had assessed the actual value of the Anode Tube before the occurrence of the damage at`54,750/- and settled the claim at`5,900/- in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. The respondent submitted that the appellant received the amount towards final settlement of the claim.`5,900/-.
5.
6. `54,750/- and settled the claim at`5,900/- in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy
7.
8.
9. `5,900/-. The appellant states that he is entitled to an amount of`50,000/- towards the cost of replaced parts and service charges of the X-ray unit. The appellant sought for tube replacement value which is calculated as per terms mentioned at page number 11 of the insurance policy
Number of Exposures
10. `5,900/- towards full satisfaction of his claim. He has stated :
“It is incorrect to say that I received the amount in full and final settlement and without protest.
11. `5,900/- after taking into consideration of the age of the X-ray machine, its depreciation and the number of exposures in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. In the written arguments filed before this Commission, the respondent has referred to the amount payable as per the terms of the insurance policy is the actual value of the item immediately prior to the occurrence of the loss or damage which includes ordinary freight erection costs and custom duties and dues if any,. The respondent determined the actual value by taking`1500/- per day and total exposures a`54,750/- for 10 years (1993 to 2008) and the respondent arrived at the amount payable as`5,900/-.
12.
“As per the service report and my accounts of X-Ray unit Registers other papers the subject X-Anode Tube which was not properly functioning was used upto 7029 exposures and it was below 8000 exposes and due to faults it was required to be replaced and accordingly it was replaced by new Tube and other required repairs and services were attended by me at the costs of RS.50,000/- and claimed the said amount from the opposite party.
I have used the x-Ray Unit upto 7029 exposures for taking X-Ray to my patients as follows:
Year | Number of X-ray anode tube exposures |
In the year 1993 | 439 X-Rays only |
In the year 1994 | 417 X-Rays only |
In the year 1995 | 321 X-Rays only |
In the year 1996 | 351 X-Rays only |
In the year 1997 | 319 X-Rays only |
In the year 1998 | 116 X-Rays only |
In the year 1999 | 676 X-Rays only |
In the year 2000 | 641 X-Rays only |
In the year 2001 | 682 X-Rays only |
In the year 2002 | 550 X-Rays only |
In the year 2003 | 443 X-Rays only |
In the year 2004 | 516 X-Rays only |
In the year 2005 | 648 X-Rays only |
In the year 2006 | 490 X-Rays only |
In the year 2007 | 250 X-Rays only |
In the year 2008 | 114 X-Rays only |
May 2008 the year in which the anode tube required replaced/repaired and in July 2008 the repairs and replacement were completed
Total Number of Expsoures = 7029 |
Anode Tube Expsoures were below-8000-X-Rays only entitled for 100% replacement. |
.
13.
Basis of Indemnity:
However, in case of payment of total loss of entire equipment, proper depreciation will be deducted from replacement value of items.
Number of Exposures | Actual Value in % of new replacement value |
< 10,000 | 100 |
< 12,000 | 90 |
< 14,000 | 80 |
< 16,000 | 70 |
< 19,000 | 60 |
< 22,000 | 50 |
< 26,000 | 40 |
< 30,000 | 30 |
< 35,000 | 20 |
< 40,000 | 10 |
> 40,000 | 0 |
14.
15.
16. `1,500/- mentioned in the claim form as assessed loss per day which is not in conformity with the amount mentioned in Column 6 of the claim form, is arbitrary and against the terms of the insurance policy.
17. The respondent claimed an amount of`50,000/- for replacement of Anode Tube, and repair charges of the equipment. Invoice dated 20.09.2008 is issued for`43,680/- by VMR Medical Systems and receipt is issued by VMR Medical Systems for an amount of`15,000/- towards charges for replacement of spare parts of the equipment. The respondent paid an amount of`5,900/-.The correspondence made by the appellant would show that he had not received the amount towards full satisfaction of the claim. All through he has been requesting the respondent insurance company to furnish him the mode and basis for arriving at`5,900/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent accepted the amount of`5,900/- towards full satisfaction of his claim.
18. `35,000/- would be reasonable.`35,000-`5,900/- equal to`21,100/- with interest @ 9% thereon. The order of the District Forum as such is liable to be set aside.
19. `21,100/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with costs of`3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
కె.ఎం.కె.*
