Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/518/2022

HDFC Life Insurance co., Ltd., N,M Josh Road Mumbai - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Jayalakshmi Plot No: 27, 1st Cross STreet hirumalai Nagar Extn., Hasthinapuram Chennai 64 and anot - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Gopalan Associates

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

    IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                           BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                          Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.518/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.97/2021 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)

 

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

HDFC Life

HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by the Branch Manager

11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, 

Apollo Mills Compound                                     M/s. M.B.Gopalan Associates

N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi                                          Counsel for

Mumbai- 400 011                                             Appellant / 2^nd opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

1. N. Jayalakshmi

W/o. Late P.L.Nachiappan

Plot No.27, 1^st Cross Street

Saraswathy Nagar

Thirumalai Nagar Extension                          M/s.A. Raghuraman

Hasthinapuram, Kancheepuram                          Counsel for

          Tamil Nadu – 600 064                             1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.       The Manager

          M/s. Orix Leasing & Financial Services India Ltd.,

          (Formerly known as OASIS Auto Financial Services Ltd.,

          (A Subsidiary of ORIX Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd.,)

          Plot No.94, Marol Co-operative Industrial Estate        M/s.S.K.Mariappan

          Andheri- Kurla Road, Andheri (E)                                 Counsel for

          Mumbai – 400 059                          2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 2^nd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.25.8.2022 in CC.No.97/2021.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The 2^nd opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant purchased a property at Hasthinapuram Village, by availing joint loan by herself and her husband Mr.L.Nachiappan from the 1^st opposite party against the property for a sum of Rs.1,00,84,858/-.  The loan was sanctioned and a sum of Rs.98,61,709/- was disbursed.  On the advise of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had taken a policy from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- covering a term of 3 years from 30.6.2017 to 29.6.2020.  The policy was issued in the name of the husband of the complainant viz. Mr.P.L.Nachiappan.  The premium of the policy was fixed at Rs.78,120/-.  While so, Mr.P.L.Nachiappan, died on 16.12.2019 due to cardiac arrest.  The complainant immediately made a claim with the opposite parties for the insurance benefit.  But the said claim was rejected by the 2^nd opposite party, and by way of letter dt.28.4.2020, it was informed that they are willing to pay only a sum of Rs.20,17,607/-.  Thus alleging negligence, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the 2^nd opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs.90,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost. 

 

3.          The Appellant/ 2^nd opposite party, and the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the 1^st  Respondent/ complainant, directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the policy amount alongwith 18% interest from 28.4.2020, alongwith compensation of Rs.500000/- and cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.   Aggrieved over the said exparte order, this appeal has been preferred by the 2^nd opposite party as appellant herein.

 

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/2^nd opposite party and the 1^st Respondent complainant. 

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the condition of the policy the assured sum for the death is only Rs.20 lakhs, and there is also suppression of material information on the side of the complainant.   The non-appearance before the District Commission by the appellant is neither willful, nor wanton. They have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter on merit. 

 

6.       On careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of records, we feel that there is some force in the arguments of the appellant/ 2^nd  opposite party.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellant/ 2^nd opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.25.1.2023 we have directed the appellant/2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the legal aid account of the state commission, on or before 30.1.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint back to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  

 

7.       Since the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party remained exparte before the District Commission, and since the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party have not filed any appeal against the order impugned, the District Commission  based on the affidavits and the available documents, can decide the matter afresh.

 

8.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu in C.C.No.97/2021 dt.25.8.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chengalpattu, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chengalpattu on 27.2.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/2^nd opposite party shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

   R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                       R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT