Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/208/2019

Branch manager,Shriram genaral insurance company ltd, No.16, Arani Complex, Khushi Complex, Syndicate Bank Building, Vellore 632 001. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.K.Venkatesan, Son of Kannan, No.18, Varadappan Street, Ambal Nagar, Oli Mohammed Pettai, Kanchipur - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Elveera Ravindran

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                               BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                               Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.208/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.5/2017 on the file of the DCDRC, Vellore)

 

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

Branch Manager

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

No.16, Arani Complex, Khushi Complex                  M/s. Elveera Ravindran

Syndicate Bank Building                                               Counsel for

Vellore – 632 001                                           Appellant / 1^st Opposite party

 

                                                        Vs.

 

1.     K. Venkatesan

        S/o. Kannan

        No.18, Varadappan Street                            M/s. K.S. Ramakrishnan

        Ambal Nagar, Oli Muhammad Pettai                        Counsel for

        Kanchipuram District – 631 502                   Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.     Branch Manager

        Shriram Transport Finance Company           M/s. S. Shujath &D.Vijaya

        No.48B, 2^nd Floor, Sannathi Street                         Counsel for

        Sholingar, Vellore – 631 102                           Respondent/ 2^nd opposite party

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.14.6.2018 in CC. No.5/2017.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant purchased JCB India make earth moving equipment by raising loan from 2^nd opposite party under hypothecation, which was insured with the 1^st opposite party.  The said JCB equipment capsized while at work at Pichatoor, Andhra Pradesh on 5.7.2016.  The complainant made a claim with the 1^st opposite party, who deputed a surveyor for inspecting the JCB.  The surveyor though inspected, failed to follow basic procedure in estimating the damage. The complainant had spent Rs.189955/- to make the equipment run.  The opposite party had not settled the claim.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.189955 towards the money spent, and a sum of Rs.278467/- towards the money required for replacing of damaged parts, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 

 

3.       The   Appellant/1^st opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, and had directed the Appellant/ 1^st opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- towards replacement of parts  and to pay a compensation of Rs.10000/- alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-.  The complaint against the 2^nd opposite party was dismissed.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party had submitted      before this commission that the insurance is a contract of utmost good faith, and both the parties are bound by terms and conditions.  As soon as the intimation is received, the opposite party deputed a surveyor for inspecting the JCB.  Thereafter on the basis of the survey report, the appellant had sought for certain relevant details from the complainant, by way of three communications.  But there was no response from the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.   The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party shall have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.  Respondents, though appeared through counsel, remained absent to put forth their submission. 

 

6.       The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that an opportunity, which was denied by the District Forum, may be given to the opposite party, by remanding the case, for fresh disposal, by setting aside the exparte order, which we are unable to deny, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, accordingly we have directed the appellant/ 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission, on or before 24.11.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

7.       Since the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party was dismissed before the District Commission, and since the 1^st Respondent/ Complainant had not filed any appeal against the order impugned, the District Commission need not send notice to the 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd opposite party.  Based on the available documents and the documents if any filed by the appellant/ 1^st opposite party, the matter can be decided afresh.

 

8.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Vellore  in C.C.No.5/2017 dt.14.6.2018, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Vellore, for fresh disposal according to law on merit. No order as to cost in this appeal.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Vellore on 26.12.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/1^st opposite party shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                          R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT