Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/766

MANAGER SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE CO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHYAMA BABU - Opp.Party(s)

SYLVESTER RAPHEL

30 May 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 766/16

JUDGMENT DATED : 30.05.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.40/16

on the file of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.K. SURENDRA MOHAN      : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                          : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

The Manager, Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd, M.G.Road, Thrissur

 

        (BY Adv.Sri.Sylvester Raphel)

 

                                VS

RESPONDENT

 

Shyma Babu, W/o.Dr.Babu, P.J.Palathingal House,   Kaipamangalam, Thrissur

 

                                      (BY Adv.Unnikrishnan)

 

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                The opposite party in CC.No.40/16 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 15.01.2015 till the date along with cost, compensation and cost of Rs 5000/-.

                2.     The case of the complainant is that he had taken an insurance policy of the opposite party and he paid Rs 75,000/- towards the single premium policy which commenced on 15.10.2010. The five year policy became mature on 15.10.2015. But the opposite party failed to pay the amount to him even though he had issued a lawyer notice to them demanding the amount. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the complaint against the opposite party for getting the amount of Rs 75,000/- with interest and also compensation and cost.

                3.     The opposite party remained exparte. On the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P3 produced by him the district forum has passed the impugned order

 

                4.     Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

                5.     Respondent appears through counsel. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                6.     The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not received any notice from the district forum and he came to know about the exparte order passed by the district forum only on 25.10.2015, when he received notice from the district forum in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent / complainant. It is stated by the appellant that he firmly believe that some foul play have taken place and his signature too might have been forged on the notice and summons issued from the district forum. There is no willful negligence or latches on the part of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the insurance policy mentioned by the complainant was issued in the name of one Mathew V Thomas and he had surrendered the policy and he had received the amount from the opposite party. The respondent / complainant deliberately, knowingly and intentionally fabricated the policy in collusion with some other person, so as to obtain the money from the appellant.

 

                7.     Perusing the records, we do not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant regarding the default committed by the appellant in appearing and filing version before the district forum even after the receipt of notice. But on perusing the records and also the Order passed by the district forum we are of the view that a decision on the complainant’s case, on the merits after setting aside the impugned order is called for. We consider that an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to raise his contentions, by filing version against the claim of the complainant and to adduce evidence in support of his contentions.

                8.     Remission of the case, setting aside the order passed by the district forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellant to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of proceedings to the respondent/ complainant. Appellant has to pay cost of Rs 10,000/- to the respondent / complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.

                9.     The respondent / complainant can realise the amount of Rs 10,000/- ordered as costs from the amount of           Rs 25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal, on proper application. Release the balance amount to the appellant for filing proper application.

                In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the district forum is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the appellant / opposite party to file version and to adduce evidence, if any. The district forum shall dispose the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 766/16

JUDGMENT DATED :30.05.2019