IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.M. MURUGESSHAN, MEMBER
F.A.No.675/2012
(Against the order passed in C.C.No.188/2011, dated 05.01.2012 on the file of the District Forum, Coimbatore)
MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF MARCH 2018.
1. M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
E/8, EPP RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapura Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 022.
2. M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Nagappa Complex,
1025, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore. Appellants/Opposite Parties
T. Subramanian,
S/o. G. Thirumalaisamy,
2/8, Alagappa Layout,
Mahalingapuram,
Pollachi – 642 002. Respondent/Complainant
For Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. Micheal Marie Antony, Advocate. Absent
For Respondent/Complainant : M/s. R. Nandakumar, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 12.03.2018 and on hearing the arguments of the respondent/complainant side and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. (Open Court)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite parties under section 15 read with section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Coimbatore passed in C.C.No.188/2011, dated 05.01.2012 2011, allowing the complaint.
For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Forum.
1. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows;-
The complainant filed a complaint before the learned District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to settle the claim of Rs.74,402/-, being the expenditure incurred towards repairing and servicing the insured vehicle, alleging inter alia, that the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide Policy No.421012/31/11/003915, dated 19.06.2010 and the insured vehicle met with an accident and the complainant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.74,402/- towards repairing the same in a workshop i.e., The True Sai Works, Hosur and when the complainant made a claim for reimbursement of the same so as to indemnify him, the opposite parties being the insurers repudiated the claim on the alleged ground of suppression of material facts that the complainant had not informed the opposite parties regarding his claim with the previous insurer, i.e., HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company while submitting the proposal form with the opposite parties and thereby availed the no-claim bonus concession.
2. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by putting a defence that the complainant had suppressed the earlier claim made with the previous insurer namely the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and availed no-claim bonus to an extent of 20% from the opposite parties and had the complainant informed the previous claim made with the earlier insurer then he would not have been eligible for any No claim bonus and as such the complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts namely receiving some reimbursement from the previous insurer towards the repairing expenses and hence the complainant is not entitled to any claim.
3. The learned District Forum, based on the pleadings of the respective parties framed 2 points and by way of answering those point’s, held that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and hence the complainant was entitled to claim the amount spent for repairing the vehicle, in addition to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for monetary loss and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as costs. The aggrieved opposite parties have filed this appeal.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing there was no representation for the appellant and the appellant called absent. In spite of the absence of the appellant, we have decided to proceed and dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the arguments of the respondent/complainant.
5. The point for consideration is whether the appeal has to be allowed for the reasons set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal?
6. Point;- The learned District Forum while answering the point No.1, as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/ appellants had answered in the affirmative on the ground that the opposite parties had miserably failed to produce any documents in respect of their defence i.e., that the complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts with regard to no-claim bonus when he took out the policy of insurance from them.
7. A perusal of records would show that there is no piece of paper filed by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant had previously availed some reimbursement from the previous insurer namely HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and suppressing the same availed no claim bonus concession extended by the opposite parties. In fact, this could have, very easily, been proved by getting copies of the same documents from the previous insurer, namely, the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company. But, unfortunately, that has not been done by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them and hence we are of the view that the main defence of the appellants/opposite parties, that the complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts has not been proved at all by the opposite parties.
8. Hence, we do not find any ground or reason to interfere with the findings of the learned District Forum and consequently we hold that the appeal cannot be allowed for the reasons set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The appellants/ opposite parties together shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent/complainant.
S.M.MURUGESSHAN, K. BASKARAN,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
