KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:428/2003 JUDGMENT DATED.1..3..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., G.P.O.Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.M.Nizamudeen) V. V.S. Suchitra Rajan, Residing at “Painkili”, : RESPONDENT Bhagavathy Nada.P.O, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:91/2005 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.68,000/- with interest at 14.5% and also general compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. The above order of the Forum is sought to be set aside. 2.The case of the complainant is that their Ambassador Car with Registration No:KL-01-M/8983 having comprehensive policy coverage with the appellants met with an accident on 1..10..2000. The car sustained substantial damages which are mentioned in the complaint in detail. It is her grievance that the cost of spare parts purchased amounting to Rs.60,608/- has been arbitrarily reduced and a number of items have been disallowed despite the fact that the above items were replaced. She has claimed an additional sum of Rs.85,608/- with interest at 18% and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 3.The opposite parties have filed version contending that the opposite parties have made a spot survey and detailed survey and as per the final report of the Surveyor and after deducting salvage value and policy excess a sum of Rs.53,000/- was sanctioned. But the complainant refused to receive the amount and has filed the complaint. 4.The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the complainant and opposite parties and Exts.P1 to P17 and D1 to D9. 5.As already noted above, the Forum ordered a sum of Rs.68,000/- as the amount due towards the repairs including spare parts. It is the contention of the counsel for the insurance company that the Forum has just awarded a lumpsum without making any enquiry into the details of the amounts awarded and amounts disallowed. On a perusal of the records we find that the Forum has not made any examination in this regard. It is just mentioned that it considered the documents available including the photographs, description in the mahazar, purchase of spare parts and the total labour charges etc. Of course, the Forum ought not to have entered into findings without considering the evidence adduced. 6.On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the matter we find that the evidence available is the proof affidavit of the complainant and the documents produced by either side. Without cross examining PW1 the proof affidavit of the opposite parties cannot be looked into. The documents produced by the opposite parties have not been proved. The complainant has proved the documents produced by her which include Exts.P6 the original of which is Ext.D6 the cash bill for the purchase of spare parts. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has brought to the notice of this Commission the items billed in Ext.D6,ie;items3,15,16,18,21,22,26,31,33, 34,35,36,39,41,42 and 46 to49 and the rest of the items in the cash bill which was not allowed by the Surveyor in Ext.D2 final survey report. No specific reason is mentioned for disallowing the above items. The surveyor was not examined and the survey report was not proved. It appears that the amounts due as per the billed items in Ext.D6 cash bill really exceed the amount allowed by the Forum, in the sense that if the amount due towards the above items are included the difference in the amount suggested by the appellants and the amount allowed by the Forum will be more. The excess amount allowed by the Forum is more than the amount sanctioned by the appellant ie, Rs.53,000/-. The excess would be Rs.15,000/-. The amount sanctioned has not been received by the complainant. 7.In the circumstances we find no reason to set aside the order of the Forum which was allowed only Rs.68,000/-. Hence the order of the Forum is confirmed. The Forum has ordered future interest at 14.5% which appears to be excessive. Hence the future interest is limited to 9% per annum. With the above modification the appeal is disposed of. 8. The appellants/opposite parties shall pay the amount to the complainant or remit the same before the Forum within 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amount would carry 18% interest from the due date. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
