Decided on September 07,2010



- (1.)THE appellant is the 2nd opposite party/Insurance Co. in OP. 3/2001 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,25,655 together with interest at 12% per annum from 10.10.2000 and cost of Rs. 2,000. It is also specified that the appellant is entitled to work out the rights if any against the 1st opposite party/financier for excess payment.
(2.)THE case of the complainant is that the Mahindra jeep owned by him and insured with the 2nd opposite party was stolen on 7.3.2000. The vehicle was purchased on 10.11.1999. The complainant had availed finance from the 1st opposite party which was liable to be repaid at the rate of Rs. 10,400 per month for the first 10 months and at the rate of Rs. 8,550 per month for the nextl3 instalments. The theft was intimated to the police and crime registered. The theft could not be detected. The complainant paid the further instalments to the financier as they threatened the complainant and the ladies at home. The complainant had spent a sum of Rs. 52,000 for the additional fittings in the jeep. The complainant had approached the opposite parties on several times for getting the insurance amount. Subsequently it was known that the 2nd opposite party colluded with the 1 st opposite party and settled the claim. It is after much delay that the 1st opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 92,318 to the complainant and told that they will pay 25% more after some time. The complainant has sought for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,56,634.20 with interest at 15% per annum from 7.6.2000 i.e., three months after the date of theft and also Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony etc. and Rs. 2,000 as costs.
(3.)THE 1st opposite party has denied the allegations made in the complaint. It is pointed out that the price of the vehicle was Rs.3,46,250. The opposite party had provided finance on hire purchase basis to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. The complainant paid the initial hire charges of Rs. 1,71,250 and the financed amount was to be repaid in instalments. The total hire purchase was fixed at Rs. 2,15,150. It is also alleged the complainant was irregular in making the payment. The complainant had paid only Rs.10,400 into 8 instalments. Thereafter the complainant did not make further payments after settling the claim with the 2nd opposite party. The opposite party collected the dues pending as per hire purchase and the balance was paid to the complainant. A sum of Rs.92,318 was refunded to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party has only paid Rs. 2,12,750 out of the claim settlement amount of Rs.2,85,000. It was told that the 25% of the claim amount will be paid in future. The above amount if paid will be refunded to the complainant. The complainant had collected Rs. 34,537.60 towards excise duty refund since the vehicle was purchased for plying as taxi. The 1st opposite party has denied any liability.
The 2nd opposite party/appellant/insurer had admitted policy coverage. It is stated that the complainant was making repeated representation for the early settlement on the ground that the liability as per the hire purchase agreement was amounting day by day. In the absence of final report from the police the insurer could not have settled the claim. As per the survey report the value of the vehicle was assessed at Rs. 2,85,000 after adjusting the subsidy of Rs. 34,265. A sum of Rs. 1000 is further deductible by way of policy excess. A sum of Rs. 2,12,750 was paid to the 1st opposite party being 75% of Rs.2,85,000. The final report from the police was not received. The delay was caused on account of the failure to submit the final report. The balance 25% of Rs. 2,85,000 can be disbursed only on receipt of final report from the police.

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