Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/52/2020

1.The Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor, Dare House, No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. And Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Dharamchand, S/o Joraram, No.10/14, Valluvar Street, Jeganathan Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 10 - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

31 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH,                 PRESIDENT

                  TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                        MEMBER

 

F.A. No.52/2020

 

(Against the Order made in C.C. No.45/2018, dated:18.03.2019  on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (North)) 

 

  FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

 

1. The Manager,

M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

II Floor, Dare House,

No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rashmi Tower, Subba Road Avenue,

Valluvar Kottam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.                                                                                                             ..  Appellants / Opposite parties. 

 

- Versus -

Mr. Dharmachand,

S/o. Mr. Joraram,

No.10/14, Valluvar Street,

Jeganathan Nagar,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.                                                                                                              .. Respondent / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite parties   : M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates

Counsel for the Respondent  / Complainant     : M/s. M. Asokaa

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 31.01.2022 and on hearing the appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT  ( Open Court):

1.         This appeal has been preferred under section 15 r/w section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellants /opposite parties  against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C. No.45/2018, dated:18.03.2019  allowing the complaint partly and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.98,291/- towards Hyundai Car repair charges with 9% interest from 28.01.2016 till the date of realization to the complainant till the date of realization to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.  

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Chennai (North).

3.       The factual background giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-

The complainant had insured his vehicle viz Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.TN 02 AZ 1887 with the opposite parties under vide Policy No.3362/00996568/000/00 with effect from 10.04.2015 12.00 hours to midnight on 09.04.2016 and the said vehicle was covered bumper to bumper.   The said vehicle met with an accident on 30.11.2015 at about 07.00 A.M. at Rajasthan and on the very same day, the claim was raised with the opposite party under reference No.3362272655 as the claim was not processed by the opposite party for nearly 2 months the complainant made a toll free enquiry by which, he was requested to pay an amount of Rs.4,377/- to enable them to process the claim.  Immediately the complainant paid the amount on 28.01.2016 and forwarded the copy of payment to the opposite party with the covering letter dt.01.02.2016  requesting the opposite party to re-open the claim and to process the same.  The damaged vehicle was given for repairs to M/s. Sivam Hyundai, Ajmer and after inspection and necessary reports made from the representatives of the opposite party the damaged vehicle was repaired at a cost of Rs.98,291/- paid by the complainant.   Inspite of the payment of Rs.4,377/- the differential amount towards insurance the claim of the complainant for reimbursement was repudiated.  Hence, after sending the legal notice a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with the direction to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.98,291/- being the repair amount with 18% interest and Rs.2,00,000/- compensation with Rs.50,000/- as cost. 

4.       Inspite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before District Commission, Chennai (North) and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were called absent and were set ex-parte on 18.09.2018 & 21.12.2018 respectively.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16.

5.  The District Commission based upon the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.98,291/- towards Hyundai Car repair charges with 9% interest from 28.01.2016 till the date of realization to the complainant till the date of realization to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

6.       Aggrieved by the same, the opposite parties has come on appeal before this Commission.  

7.       The Learned Counsel for appellants appeared before this Commission and submitted that there was suppression of facts at the time of taking insurance and hence lesser premium was collected from the complainant. Thus, he submitted that due to the said reason the contract of insurance was void and the Appellants had rightly repudiated the claim as there is no liability under the said policy.  He further argued that the principle of good faith was violated by the complainant and the District Commission failed to appreciate the same.  He sought for an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove that the insurance contract was void before the District Commission.  Considering the submissions made by the appellants, we thought it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the appellants to defend the case before the District Commission.  As a result, we allow the appeal on a condition to pay as sum of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the legal aid account of S.C.D.R.C., Chennai on or before 29.01.2022 by the appellants.  

8.       Today, when the matter was heard before this Commission the  Counsel for the appellants submitted that the cost has been paid and also filed the Memo of compliance in proof of the same.  In view of the compliance, we hereby set aside the Ex-parte order passed by the District Commission and remit back the matter to the District Commission to be decided afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to both parties. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Order dt.18.03.2019 and made in   C.C. No.45/2018 of the District Commission, Chennai (North).  The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chennai (North) on 01.03.2022 and the opposite party is directed to file Vakalath, written version, proof affidavit and documents if any on the same date.  The District Commission is directed to dispose off the matter 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.

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                          R. SUBBIAH, 

             MEMBER.                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT.