State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, United India ... vs Kumari & 3 Ors on 29 September, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 742 of 2023 (Against the order passed in C.C. No.61 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 on the file of DCDRC, Vellore). Friday, the 29th day of September 2023 The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., TNHB, Jothi Nagar Arakkonam Ranipet District. .. Appellant / Opposite party Vs. 1. Mrs. Kumari W/o. Late Santhakumar 2. Minor Vishnavi D/o. Late Santhakumar 3. Minor Diwakar D/o. Late Santhakumar Respondents 2 & 3 Rep. by their Mother/ 1st Respondent 4. Mrs. Kalyani M/o. Late Santhakumar All are residing at No.48, Road Street Vellithangipuram Village Nemili Taluk Ranipet District. .. Respondents/ Complainants Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite party : M/s. K. Ravikumar Counsel for the Respondents / Complainants : Mr. Muhamed Ali The Respondents as Complainants had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Commission, Vellore dated 26.08.2022 in C.C. No.61 of 2022. This appeal came before me for final hearing, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court. ORDER
THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court) The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainants before the District Commission is that the 1st complainant is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd complainants are minor children and the 4th complainant is the mother of one G. Santhakumar. The said Santhakumar availed an Individual Personal Accident Policy bearing No.2804024217P119220415 from the opposite party for the period covering from 31.03.2018 to the mid night of 30.03.2019. Whileso, on 03.11.2018 at about 09.50 pm at Padiyanallur village, one Dinakaran kicked Santhakumar into the well, which had no parapet wall and as a result of which said Santhakumar had died. The fire service personnel retrieved the body of the victim from the well. A case in Cr.No.543/2018 was registered under section 294(b), 323 and 302 IPC against the said Dinakaran, by the Sholingur Police station and the case was taken up on file in S.C.No.106/2019 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranipet. By letter dated 27.07.2020, the appellant/opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainants stating that the husband of the 1st complainant was under the influence of liquor, at the time of occurrence. Aggrieved over the irresponsible act of the opposite party, the complainants issued a legal notice on 18.05.2022 but there was no reply from the opposite party. Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint has been filed before the District Commission for a direction to the opposite party to pay the Personal Accident Insurance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the deceased G.Santhakumar i.e. 03.11.2018 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainants.
3. Though notice has been served on the opposite party, they have failed to appear before the District Commission and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte on 22.08.2022. Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- being the insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of the order and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost to the complainants. Further, the District Commission has directed the opposite party to pay the said amount within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the award amount except cost, shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
4. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.
5. Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that even in the absence of the opposite party the District Commission ought to have passed orders on merits, taking into consideration their repudiation letter dated 27.07.2020. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased and the charge sheet, the said Santhakumar, who was under the influence of alcohol involved himself in a fight and during the course of fight he fell into the well. The Chemical analysis report issued by the Scientific Officer also states that the said Santhakumar was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his death. This is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Though the appellant/opposite party received the summons from the District Commission, due to inadvertence the summons along with the entire file was misplaced in the appellant's office and the case could not be followed properly. Recently, on receipt of the notice in the Execution Application filed by the Respondents/ complainants, the appellant/opposite party came to know about the ex-parte order of the District Commission. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party and that the compensation awarded is very high. Hence, the appellant/opposite party prayed this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and afford them an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
6. When the case came up before this Commission on 26.09.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant/opposite party, to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit. However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, this Commission imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission. The said cost was also paid today and since the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with, the appeal is allowed and the complaint is remanded to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore in C.C. No.61/2022 dt.26.08.2022 and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.
Both parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Commission, Vellore on 27.10.2023 for further proceedings. The appellant/opposite party is directed to file Vakalat, Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.
The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties 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.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2023