Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/44/2024

THE MANAGER INVESTIGATION, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

A ANNADURAI S/O LATE AROCKIASAMY - Opp.Party(s)

KABEER AHMED K Z-REV.PTNR

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

    

Revision Petition No.44 of 2024

 

[(Against the Order dated 08.04.2022 passed in C.C. No.47/2020 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)]

 

                                                       Orders dated:22.08.2024

 

The Manager Investigation,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Unit No.684-690 Seethakkathi Business Centre,

Anna Salai, Thousand Lights,

Chennai – 600 005.                   … Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.

 

- Versus –

 

A. Annadurai,

S/o. Late A. Arockiasamy,

No.11/27, Parasuraman Street,

Pattalam,

Chennai – 600 012.                            … Respondent/ Complainant.

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioner/ 

                      Opposite Party             : M/s. Kabeer Ahmed K.Z.

 

Respondent /Complainant                   : M/s. S. Thiagarajan.

 

 

     This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. (President)                                        

       The Revision Petitioner herein – the Manager Investigation, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., who is the Opposite Party in CC No.47 of 2020 that has been filed by the respondent herein as complainant before the DCDRC, Chennai-North, alleging service deficiency that the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated the insurance claim for reason of delayed intimation of theft of the vehicle, challenges the order, dated 08.04.2022, whereby, the District Commission set the Insurance Company ex-parte for their absence on the said date of proceedings.

               2. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the respondent herein/complainant had sent the Notice connected to the Complaint on more than one occasion either to an incorrect address or to a different Department viz., to the Manager Investigation instead of Manager Claims, however, he convinced the lower Commission as if Notice was duly served upon the Revision Petitioner, resulting in passing of the impugned order, dated 08.04.2022, setting the Insurance Company ex-parte.  It is further submitted that, after the said ex-parte order, he also moved a Miscellaneous Petition before the Commission below to effect amendments in respect of the Policy Number as well as the Address and the said petition was also allowed on 05.05.2023 upon convincing the Commission that Notice in the M.P. was duly served upon the revision petitioner despite the actual fact that the said Notice was taken out to the incorrect Department/Regional Office.  In such background, in the absence of any scope to file a written version, the principles of natural justice demand that the OP/Insurance Company must be given an opportunity to file their written arguments and to submit their points in the course of final hearing, by setting aside the impugned ex parte order. 

          In support of his plea against the sustainability of the orders like the one under challenge, learned counsel pressed into service a decision, dated 04.09.2023, of the Apex Court, rendered in the case between ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh, and quoted the following text there-from:-

“On perusal of the impugned order, we note that a proxy counsel appeared for the counsel for the appellant/Opposite party herein before the NCDRC, seeking an adjournment of the case. Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC. In order to do so a short adjournment was sought by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. However, the NCDRC refused to grant the adjournment for the reasons that no written version had been filed by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. In fact learned counsel for the respondent brings to our notice that even Vakalatnama was not filed on behalf of the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. However, the fact remains that the counsel was engaged to seek an adjournment in order to address arguments on merits. The opposite party had the right to do so even in the absence of filing its written version against the complaint. Since the request for adjournment was refused and only the complainant was heard on merits, we find that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. On that short ground alone the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the NCDRC in order to grant a reasonable opportunity to both sides to address arguments on merits in the said complaint.”  {Emphasis Supplied}

Accordingly, he sought for allowing the Revision in line with the essence of the above ruling.

        3. No representation for the other side.

        4. The tenor of the above ruling is, in the face of the statutory bar for an OP to file written version beyond the prescribed time-limit of 45 days, the obstacle created in the form of an ex-parte order, by virtue of which the OP can neither file their written arguments nor advance submissions during final hearing, would only amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the same and of the actual predicament where the OP had already failed to file the written version within the statutory period and there being no scope anymore for him to file/mark any document in support of his denial, he would completely lose the right of defence if not permitted to file “written arguments” and to present “oral arguments on merits only”, we are inclined to accede to the plea of the revision petitioner.

                   5. In the result, the Revision Petition stands disposed of by directing the DCDRC, Chennai-North, to permit the revision petitioner to file their written arguments in CC No.47 of 2020 and to advance their oral arguments at the time of final hearing.

   

                                                            R.SUBBIAH, J.

                                                                PRESIDENT.

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2024.

 

Reportable   :  YES.