BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.314/2013 against C.C.No.79/2012 District Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, represented by
Its Branch Manager, Alankar Plaza
3rd floor, Park Road,
Kurnool 518 001. ..Appellant/opp.party
And
G.Kuppa Swamy
S/o.G.Venkata Swamy,
R/o.D.No.62-248,
Chidambha Rao Street,
Kurnool 518 001. ..Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Mohan Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s D.Kumara swamy
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)
***
This appeal is directed against the orders in C.C.No.79/2012 dated 22-1-2013 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 9842 TATA Winger and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 21-10-2009 to 20-10-2010 and a policy was issued by the opposite party and the same is numbered as OG/09/1806/1812/00000443. It appears that the vehicle met with an accident near Ponpadi check post, Tamilnadu border and a complaint was lodged before the Thiruttani Police Station and the same was registered as C.S.R.No.312/2010 on 14-4-2010. The opposite party was informed about the incident and the surveyor of the opposite party visited the spot, inspected the damaged vehicle and collected all the relevant documents and he also assessed the loss. Thereafter the vehicle was sent to M.G.Brothers show room at Chittoor District and the complainant incurred an amount of Rs.1,02,632/- towards repairs. When the complainant claimed the said amount, the opposite party refused to pay the same and addressed a letter dated 20-11-2010 stating that the claim of the complainant is closed as “No claim”. In these circumstances the complainant approached the District Forum and raised a dispute for filing the present C.C.
Despite the service of notice, the opposite party i.e. insurance company has not chosen to put in its appearance and contest the matter and in those circumstances, the opposite party was set exparte.
The District Forum after hearing the counsel for the complainant and also looking into the material on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the said amount and accordingly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,632/- i.e. the expenditure incurred towards repairs together with costs of Rs.1000/- within a period of one month.
The said order as stated supra is challenged by the opposite party in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon us stating that the driver who drove the vehicle at the relevant point of time was not having a valid license. We are not inclined to go into the said aspect for the reason that the order of the District Forum is an exparte order. It is always desirable that any lis between the parties is decided on the basis of merits rather than technicalities. In the circumstances, this Commission remands the matter back to the District Forum but as the latches are mainly on the part of the appellant/opposite party, the appellant shall be penalized for not prosecuting the complaint before the District Forum.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for denova enquiry, however on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to the respondent/complainant.
PRESIDENT.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.26-2-2014.
