UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JACOB JOHN
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) 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 i.e., 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 of 1999 model. The Surveyors have filed two separate reports. The finding of the Surveyors is that the market value of the above vehicle on the date of theft is Rs. 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.
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 i.e. 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.