Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 copy of the cinema operators license was marked.  On the side of the opposite party/insurance company the surveyor was examined as RW1.  Ext.R1 to R10 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite party.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below dismissed the complaint in OP.805/04.  Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein.

3. We heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He argued for the position that Rs.4,79,761/- was paid by the insurance company by way of part claim and that the complainant/insured is entitled for the balance claim of Rs.11,20,239/-.  He also relied on R4 to R6 documents to substantiate the claim for Rs.16.lakhs preferred by the complainant/insured.  Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated:16th November 2009 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.805/04.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party/insurance company supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  He much relied on Ext.R10 discharge voucher executed by the appellant/complainant (insured) for acceptance of Rs.4,79,761/- by way of final settlement of the insurance claim.  He also relied on R1 survey report dated:9/4/2002 and R2 addendum survey report submitted by the approved surveyor.  Thus, the respondent/opposite party justified their action in repudiating the further claim for Rs.11,20,239/-.

6. On getting intimation about the fire accident, the respondent/opposite party/insurance company deputed the approved surveyors M/s Zanders, General Insurance surveyor/loss assessor and project consultant and that the surveyor submitted R1 survey report dated:9/4/2002 and R2 addendum survey report estimating the loss at Rs.4,96,961/-.  The surveyor who assessed the loss has been examined as RW1.  He deposed in support of the assessment of loss.  It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant has not filed any objection to the aforesaid survey report.  There is no other material available on record to discard or disbelieve the survey report submitted by RW1.

11. The fire accident occurred on 19/2/2002.   The approved surveyor inspected the fire accident spot on 20/2/2002 and he filed R1 survey report on 9/2/2002.  The surveyor has also filed R2 addendum survey report on 15/6/2002.  The complainant/insured executed R10 voucher and accepted the cheque for Rs.4,79,761/- on 19/12/2002.  It is prior to the acceptance of the cheque on 19/12/2002, the complainant submitted the letter on 14/11/2002 expressing his disagreement with the assessment of loss by the surveyor.  It is after the said letter dated:14/11/2002, the respondent/opposite party/insurance company issued R7 letter to the complainant.  R7 is dated 18/12/2002.  Prior to the issuance of R7 letter there was discussion between the complainant and the officials of the insurance company.  Ext.R7 letter would also show that the complainant agreed to settle the insurance claim on accepting a sum of Rs.4,79,761/-.  The complainant himself has affixed his signature on R7 letter agreeing the said settlement.  The aforesaid endorsement made by the complainant on R7 letter is dated:19/12/2002.  It is to be noted that on19/12/2002 the complainant had also accepted the cheque for Rs.4,79,761/- and made an endorsement to that effect on R10 discharge voucher.  So, the subsequent filing of the complaint in OP.805/04 can be considered as an after thought of the complainant/insured.  There is nothing on record to show that immediately after accepting the cheque for Rs.4,79,761/-, the complainant raised any objection to the settlement of the aforesaid claim for Rs.4,79,761/-.  It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the complainant as insured accepted the cheque for Rs.4,79,761/- without any demur or objection.  The available circumstances and evidence on record would make it clear that the complaint in OP.805/04 was filed as a test case without any merit.  If that be so, the CDRF, Thrissur is perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint in OP.805/04.  We do not find any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The present appeal deserves nothing but dismissal.  These points are answered accordingly.