Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/367/2023

The Manager, M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

B. Jothieswaran, S/o Balakrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K.Vinod

31 May 2023

ORDER

         IN THE TAMILNADU  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

               Present:     Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH           ::      PRESIDENT                       

                              Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                      ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 367/2023

(As against order in RBT/CC.No. 30/2022 dated 21.2.2023 on the file of

DCDRC, Thiruvallur)

                                                            DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY 2023

 

 

The Manager,

M/s Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,

Old No. 398, 3^rd Floor,

New No 824/1, NG Tower Nandanam,

Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035                                           ..Appellant/opposite party

 

                                        Vs

B.Jotheeswaran,

S/o Balakrishnan,

No. 30, R.K.Avenue, Nethaji Street,

Thatchoor, Ponneri Taluk,

Thiruvallur District                                                                .Respondent/complainant

 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party             : M/s K.Vinod

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant            : M/s K.Thirumavalavan

 

      The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint, in part.  Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission Thiruvallur dt. 21.2.2023 in CC. No.30/2022.

 

          This appeal came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellants, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

THIRU.R VENKATESA PERUMAL, MEMBER(Open court)

 

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

          2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he was the owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry with Registration No. TN 18 AV 5999 and the same was purchased with the financial assistance of bank. On purchasing the said vehicle, it was insured with the opposite party for the period of 13.6.2020 to 12.6.2021. At the time of purchasing the same, the opposite party assured that they would indemnified the loss to the complainant’s vehicle in case of any untoward incident. When the said policy was in force, the vehicle met with an accident on 5.6.2021 and the same was informed to the opposite party on 6.6.2021. The opposite party insisted the complainant to send invoice for the repair to be done to the vehicle. The complainant had given the vehicle to TVS company for repair, where the person on behalf of opposite party had inspected the vehicle and noted down the damages and thereafter repair works were carried out. After completion of the repair work, the insurance invoice was raised to the opposite party for which the opposite party replied stating that the claim was rejected for the reason that the vehicle which was produced for inspection prior to the commencement of the insurance cover was different from the one which was produced at the time of survey. The vehicle produced for inspection was the one and the same which was perused at the time of survey which was confirmed by the opposite party’s officer who verified the engine and chasis number during inspection. Thus alleging defiency in the service of opposite party, the complaint was filed by the complainant praying to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

3.         The opposite party failed to file vakalat, version before the District Commission and was called absent and set exparte on 6.10.2022. Consequently the District commission passed an exparte order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,34,878/- along with Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. If the amount not paid within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied from the date of complaint till realization.

4.       Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party for setting aside the order and for chance to contest the case on merits.

5.   Before this commission, the counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and they have got valid defence. The notice issued by the District Commission was served on them on 6.10.2021. The summons were served to the Branch Office and got mixed up with other papers which could not be traced by the appellant/opposite party in time, and only after receiving the order copy the appellant came to know that the case has been filed against them and an exparte decree passed on the same.  Therefore they sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

6.      When the case had come up before this Commission on 20.4.2023, after hearing the submission of both sides this commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the complaint for the appellant/opposite party and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we impose a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the legal-aid account of the State Commission on or before 30.5.2023. Today when the matter appeared in the list, it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with. Hence the appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur in RBT/C.C.No.30/2022 dt.21.2.2023, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruvallur, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits, after hearing bothsides.

Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thiruvallur on 3.7.2023, for further proceedings. The appellant/opposite party is directed to file vakalat, version, proof affidavit and documents and written arguments if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.

          Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant/opposite party before this commission.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                             R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT