(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/06/2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.340/2008, Dilip Gopinath Sharma Modi Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘Forum’ in short). The alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/original opponent insurance company for repudiating the insurance claim which arose on account of theft of the vehicle. The appellant insurance company preferred to remain absent and hence proceeded ex-parte and the forum accepting the submission of the respondent/complainant allowed the complaint directing the appellant/original opponent to pay `7,50,000/- towards cost of vehicle, `10,000/- towards mental harassment. Further directed the complainant to pay 2 outstanding EMI’s @ `21,786/-. In addition to it, the opponent is directed to pay cost of `5,000/- to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the original opponent, insurance company.
(2) It was pointed out that the respondent/original opponent No.2, ICICI Bank Ltd. is a financial institution which financed for the car purchase and therefore added as a party.
(3) At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant is present. Both the respondents remain absent. Under the circumstances, we prefer to hear the appeal on merit.
(4) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the notice of the proceedings before the forum was sent on wrong address to the insurance company and not on its registered under the Company’s Act, it did not receive the same. Even through there was proper service on the insurance company, the matter was unfortunately proceeded ex-parte against it. We find such submission is devoid of any substance considering the address mentioned in the appeal memo.
(5) It is alleged by the complainant that the stolen vehicle was used as a private taxi and for which National Tourist permit was obtained. Another aspect is that the IDV of the stolen vehicle was `6,83,050/- and the vehicle had insurance to that extent but the forum preferred to grant compensation on higher side at `7,50,000/- and besides that directing to complainant to pay two outstanding EMI to the finance institution and the parties were directed to settle the account. Such direction, perse, could not be given considering scope of Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These reliefs were not even claimed. We find, to do the substantial justice, both the parties, particularly, the insurance company should get a legitimate opportunity to defend itself, and the forum shall be required to address itself with proper legal issues while setting the dispute according to law. Therefore, accepting the submission made on behalf of the appellant, we find it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter for proper contest on merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/06/2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 340/08 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Forum, Thane for de novo trial, in light of the observations made in the body of the order.
The forum shall give opportunity to the appellant/original opponent No.1 to file written version on the date of appearance and thereafter giving reasonable opportunity to lead evidence u/s.13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, settle the dispute according to law.
Intimation of the date for hearing be given to the parties by the forum.
No order as to costs.
The amount deposited u/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant in the Commission be refunded to it, as per the law.
Appeal stands disposed off, accordingly.
Pronounced on 9th January, 2012.
