KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NOS.334/08 & 533/09
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED:06-11-2010
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL NO.334/2008
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office II, Malankara Bldgs;
Palayam, Trivandrum. R/by
United India Insurance Company Ltd., : APPELLANT
Divisional Office-LMS, Compound,
Trivandrum. R/by its
Deputy Manager-T.B.Jayaprakash.
(By Adv:Sri.R.Jagadishkumar)
Vs.
Jacob John,
R/by Power of Attorney Holder-
Varghese Joseph, T.C.3/310, : RESPONDENT
Kalappurakkal, Muttada, TVPM.
(By Adv.Sri.B.Vasudevan Nair & M.Vysakh)
APPEAL NO.533/2009
Jacob John,
Kaniyam Parambil House, : APPELLANT
Nalanchira.P.O, TVPM.
(By Adv.Sri.B.Vasudevan Nair)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd floor, Malankara Buildings, : RESPONDENT
P.B.No.5521, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sri.m.Nizamudeen)
COMMON JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT
Appellant in A.334/08 is the opposite party/insurance company in OP.282/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant in A.533/09 is the complainant in the above OP who has sought for enhanced compensation.
2. The matter relates to theft of a Tata Sumo Vehicle which is mentioned as a 1999 model and that the same has been stolen on 3/3/2002. According to the complainant the ID value of the vehicle ie, Rs.5,20,000/- should have been allowed as compensation. According to him the vehicle was fitted with A/c, Pioneer Stereo and 4 speakers. It is alleged that the loss assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- by the surveyors does not reflect the actual loss. He has sought for the entire ID value towards the loss.
3. The opposite party/insurer has contended that the opposite party had deputed 2 independent surveyors to assess the market value of the stolen vehicle ie of 1999 model. The surveyor’s have filed two separate reports. The finding of the surveyors is that the market value of the above vehicle on the date of theft isRs.2,00,000/-. The above amount was offered to the complainant. The complainant did not receive the same. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant’s power of attorney DW1 to DW3, Exts.P1 to P6, D1, D2 and D2(a). It was contended by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that the surveyors did not give notice to the complainant. It was also contended that the opposite party also did not give notice to the complainant as to the appointment of the surveyors. It is the contention that the complainant is entitled for the entire ID value.
4. We find that the complainant has not adduced any evidence as to the value of the vehicle when he purchased the same. He has also not adduced any independent evidence as to the probable market value of the vehicle on the date of the theft ie after about the 3 years of purchase. The Manager of the opposite parties and the 2 surveyors has deposed as DWs 1 to 3. Nothing has been put to DWs 1 to 3 in the cross examination as to the present contention that the complainant was not given notice at the time of appointment of the surveyors or that the surveyors did not give notice to the complainant. There is no pleading to the above effect also. In the circumstances and in the light of the evidence of DWs 2 and 3 the surveyors who have proved D2 and D2(a) survey reports no other conclusion is possible other than that a market value of the vehicle at the time of theft amounted to Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. The case of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party in A.334/08 is that the Forum has directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% from 3/3/2002 ie the date of theft. The opposite party appellant has contended that the above direction cannot be sustained as the opposite party, vide Ext.P3 letter dated:10/3/2003 has offered to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant did not receive the same. We find that there is merit in the above contention. The complaint has been filed on 24/7/2003 only. The rate of interest awarded also appears excessive. The complainant ought to have received the amount and then filed the complaint. In the circumstances the direction to pay interest is modified as follows:
The opposite parties would be liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 24/7/2003. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from today ie 6/11/2010, the date of this order.
Appeal No.334/08 is allowed in part and Appeal.533/09 is dismissed.
The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum at the earliest.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
