Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/580/2022

The divisional manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Vinothkumar - Opp.Party(s)

S.Dakshinamoorthy

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                   BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                                PRESIDENT

                                Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                         MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.580/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.4/2020 on the file of the DCDRC, Cuddalore)

 

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

The Divisional Manager

The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Arcot Woodlands Complex       M/s.S.Dhakshna Moorthy

Second Floor, No.1, Bharathi Road                            Counsel for

Cuddalore – 607 001                                     Appellant /Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

N. Vinothkumar

S/o. Nandagopal

No.1-E, Mettu Street                                        M/s. K.A.Vimal Kumar

Melkumaramangalam                                              Counsel for

Panruti Taluk                                                 Respondent/ Complainant

 

        The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.2.2022 in CC. No.4/2020.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside, 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 opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.        The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is the owner of the Tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 28 AK 2041.  The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party.  While the insurance was in force, the said vehicle met with an accident on 7.9.2018, and due to the accident the vehicle was completely damaged.  The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite party, and the opposite party had also appointed a surveyor to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage.  The complainant had repaired the vehicle by spending a sum of Rs.16,85,830/-.  But the opposite party had repudiated the claim, by stating the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.16,85,830/- alongwith interest @18% p.a., and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 

 

3.       The   Appellant/ opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.16,85,830/-towards the repair of the vehicle, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite party had filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted      that the driver was holding the license only to drive LMV vehicle, whereas the vehicle insured is a heavy vehicle.  Therefore, since the driver was not possessing the valid licence, there was a violation of policy condition.   The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party has a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing on bothsides.

 

6.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that deciding the matter after considering the defence of the otherside would always be justifiable.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellant/ opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.3.2.2023   we have directed the appellant/ opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 15.2.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this 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, Cuddalore in C.C.No.4/2020 dt.28.2.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Cuddalore, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Cuddalore on 17.3.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellants/opposite parties 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, within three months, according to law on merit.  

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

 

 

   R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                        R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT