Back
2010(3) CPR 256
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member and Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan, Member
The Branch Manager, M/s. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. —Appellants
versus
K.M. Aboobacker —Respondent
FA 431/09 and 585/09
Decided on 30.11.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant in Appeal No. 431/09 :Prasanna Kumar Nair, Advocate.
For the Appellant in Appeal No. 585/09:G.S. Kalkura, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the policy condition make it clear that the insured declared value is to be taken as market value of the vehicle, complainant cannot claim for more than the I.D. value.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Deficiency in service—Insurance claim—Theft of comprehensively insured vehicle—Report of theft lodged and information also given to the insurer on the same day—All details of the vehicle submitted by the complainant to insurer in the prescribed form—Opposite parties did not settle the claim on one pretext or the other and kept on the matter prolonging—Forum passed the impugned order holding deficiency in service on part of opposite parties—Finding of the Forum based on appreciation of evidence, not liable to interference—Condition of policy showing the market value of the vehicle at Rs. 6,72,000/- —Forum erred to deduct 5% therefrom as depreciation—Complainant entitled to get Rs. 6,72,000/- —Interest allowed by the Forum @ 9% upheld—Award of compensation at Rs. 10,000/- held to be unjustified and deleted—Claim of interest @ 18% p.a. by complainant not allowed—His claim for more than I.D. value also disallowed. (Paras 7 to 16)
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member—The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 14th August 2008 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.No.281/06. The complaint in the said CC.No.281/06 was filed by the appellant in FA.585/09 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (appellants in FA 431/09) in settling the insurance claim put forward by the complainant K.M. Aboobacker with respect to the insured vehicle bearing No.KL-04 P. 2798. The opposite parties entered appearance before the forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that there was no repudiation of the insurance claim but the delay in settling the insurance claim occurred only due to the failure on the part of the complainant/insured to submit the final report filed by the concerned police. They also disputed the value of the vehicle at Rs.8.5 lakhs and contended that the complainant/insured is only entitled to get the market value of the lost vehicle or the insured value of the vehicle whichever, is less Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC 281/06.
2. Before the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness on his side as PW2. Exts. A1 to A14 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. The Asst. Manager of the opposite party/National Insurance Company was examined as RW1. B1 and B2 documents were also marked on their side. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order finding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay in settling the insurance claim. Thereby, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 6,72,000/- as insurance amount after deducting 5% of the same as depreciation with a further direction to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid insurance amount from the date of the complaint till realization with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 2000/- Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha the present appeal 431/09 is filed by the opposite parties. The complainant is not fully satisfied with the impugned order passed by the forum below hence he filed the Appeal No.585/09. Thus, the appellant in Appeal 431/09 prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. On the other hand, the appellant in A.585/09 prayed for enhancing the insurance amount with interest and costs.
3. We heard both sides. The above appeals ire preferred from one and the same order dated 14.8.09 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.No.281/06. Both the parties have preferred appeal. So, both these appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals can be referred to according to their rank and status before the forum below in CC.No.281/06.
4. The points that arise for consideration are: -
1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (appellants in FA431/09) in settling the insurance claim put forward by the complainant (appellant in FA.585109)?
2. Whether there was any negligence or laches on the part of the Complainant appellant in FA431/09) in producing the documents forward the insurance claim ?
3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere or modify the impugned order dated 14/8/08 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.No.281/06?
5. Points 1 to 3:
Admittedly, the complainant insured his Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL- 04P 2798 with the opposite party/National Insurance Company Limited at its branch in Alappuzha. The first opposite party is the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Ltd; YMCA Road, Alappuzha and the second opposite party is the Divisional Manager of the National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Kayamkulam. That current comprehensive (fully covered) insurance policy was valid and effective for the period from 23.2.05 to 22.2.06 It is
