BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE Vs. M.N.PURUSAHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 31/3/05 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP 396/01. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming insurance amount of Rs. 1,94,835.89/ - The opposite party insurance company admitted the policy and the peril which occurred on 9th July 2001. Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 20,822/ - It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party Insurance Company allowed Rs. 20,780/ - towards the insurance claim. The complainant was not amenable for the amount offered by the insurance company. Hence he preferred the complaint in OP 396/01. The opposite party was ready to pay the amount of loss assessed by the licensed Surveyor. But the complainant was not prepared to accept the same. Hence alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext P1 to P8 documents were marked on his side. The Manager of the opposite party insurance company was examined as DW1 and the survey report was marked as Ext B1. On an appreciation of evidence on record the Forum below reassessed the loss suffered by the complainant and thereby awarded a sum of Rs. 1,58,754/ - as the issuance amount for the damage caused to the stock in the shop owned by the complainant. The opposite party insurance company is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Forum below. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party insurance company submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum in the present appeal. He much relied on Ext B1 Survey report and argued for the position that insurance company was only liable to pay the loss assessed by the Surveyor. He has also argued for the position that the entire items shown as damaged items were not actually damaged and those items were saleable items. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He much relied on Ext P3 and P3(a) registers and P8 series of purchase bills and invoices. Thus the respondent requested for dismissal for the present appeal.