Decided on May 15,2009

C.Valsala Respondents


M.V.VISWANATHAN, J. - (1.)THE above appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.4.2002 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP. No. 236/2000. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties claiming insurance amount of Rs. 2,89,500/ - with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. PY -01 -3 -8449 which was stolen on the night of 10.1.99. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that the complainant/insured failed to produce the necessary documents to settle the insurance claim. It is further contended that the market value of the insured stolen vehicle was assessed by 2 approved surveyors and the market value has been assessed at Rs. 1,55,000/ - and 1,60,000/ - respectively. Thus, the opposite parties denied the case of deficiency of service on their part.
(2.)BEFORE the Forum below PW1, the husband of the complainant was examined and Exts. P1 to P16 documents were produced and marked. From the side of the opposite parties, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D4 documents were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,89,500/ - with interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum from the date of the complaint with compensation of Rs. 5000/ - and cost Rs. 1000/ -. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP 236/2000.
(3.)WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the market value of the vehicle was assessed by the surveyors at Rs. 1,55,000/ - and Rs. 1,75,000/ -. He also pointed out that the driver of the vehicle reported to the Police that the market value of the vehicle was only Rs. 1,70,000/ -. He also pointed out the fact that the complainant failed in producing the RC book and the police report to settle the insurance claim. Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside/modify the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
The points that arise for consideration are: -

1. Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in setting the insurance claim with respect to the insured vehicle, which was stolen on 10/1/99?

2. Whether the claim for Rs. 2,89,500/ - can be allowed?

3. Whether the opposite parties are justified in offering the market value of the vehicle on the date of the peril?

4 . Whether the Forum below can be justified in directing the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs. 2,89,500/ - to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 5000/ - and cost of Rs. 1000/ -?

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