BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. P.N. SIVAN PILLAI
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-5-9
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 31,2010

BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
P.N. Sivan Pillai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 28th April 2004 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP 204/03. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Adimali in not re -imbursing the entire loss sustained by the complainant with respect to the insured building bearing No. 9/364 of Pallivasal Panchayath. The complainant claimed sum of Rs. 32066/ - as the balance insurance amount with compensation of Rs.5,000/ - and cost of Rs.3000/ -. The opposite party/United India Insurance Company entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. The opposite party contended that the damaged insured building was assessed by the approved surveyor at Rs.5899/ - and the opposite party has paid the said amount to the complainant/insured. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below, the approved and licensed surveyor who submitted R1 survey report was examined as DWl. At the instance of the complainant an expert commissioner was deputed to assess the loss sustained by the complainant/insured with respect to the insured building. The expert report filed by the said commissioner has been marked as Ext. C1. No other evidence was adduce by the complainant. Based on the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.17,101/ - with cost of Rs.2000/ -. In the event of failure to pay the aforesaid compensation the opposite party is made liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of default. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party/Insurance Company.
(3.) WE heard both sides The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the Forum below has gone wrong in relying on C1 commission report without examining the commissioner who filed C1 commission report and that the Forum below has not considered the objection filed by the opposite party to C1 report. It is further submitted that the Forum below ignored the R1 survey report filed by the licensed surveyor and the evidence of the licensed surveyor as DW1. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and also for dismissal of the complaint in OP. 204/03. On the other hand, the, learned, counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order Passed by the Forum below. It is submitted that the expert commissioner who submitted C1 report considered all the relevant aspects of the case and assessed the actual loss sustained by the complainant/insured. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.