JUDGMENT :

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

1. This Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2015 made in O.S.No.9 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.

2. The respondent, as the plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,54,000/- with subsequent interest and costs from the appellants/defendants.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

The respondent's father V.M.Shanmugam took two life insurance polices for Rs.30,000/- in policy No.761799305 dated 15.11.1997 and for Rs.5,70,000/- in policy No.761976635 dated 28.01.1998. He was paying the premium till his death. The respondent is a nominee under both the policies. The said V.M.Shanmugam died in a road accident on 28.08.1998. A case was registered and taken cognizance in S.T.C.No. 693/1998 against the driver of the vehicle and the driver was punished by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumidi. As a nominee, the respondent is entitled to receive double the amount of policy amounts. The respondent raised claim for the said amounts and that was acknowledged by the appellants through their acknowledgment dated 08.09.1998. Subsequently, the appellants refused to settle the policy amounts on untenable grounds like, variation in handwriting of V.M.Shanmugam, over statement of income e.t.c. They sent a communication dated 18.10.2001 stating that the claim made by the respondent is rejected. Respondent's father V.M.Shanmugam had disclosed all the necessary material facts at the time of taking the LIC policies. The respondent sent a letter dated 08.01.2003 through his Advocate to the second appellant and that was replied by the second appellant on 13.01.2003 along with the annexure letter dated 05.02.2002. Letter dated 05.02.2002 reads that Review Committee has rejected the respondent's claim. However, it is stated in the letter dated 13.01.2003 that steps are being taken for placing the respondent's claim before the Review Committee. The appellants have taken contrary stand with regard to placing the matter before the Review Committee. Finally, the respondent sent a letter to the third appellant on 07.04.2003 with regard to his claim and that was not replied. The respondent filed a petition before the District Consumer Forum, Erode demanding damages for deficiency of service and that was allowed. The appellants took the matter before the State Consumer Forum in F.A.No.641 of 2006. The State Consumer Forum set aside the order of District Consumer Forum with a liberty to respondent to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. Thus, this case came to be filed.

4. The appellants resisted the claim of the respondent alleging that the deceased V.M.Shanmugam was an Agriculturist, physically cultivating a small piece of land. The appellants suspected genuineness of the claims made by the respondent, because of the reason that V.M.Shanmugam died within one year from the date of taking the policies. The investigation conducted by the appellants unearthed certain facts which led to the repudiation of the complaint. During the course of investigation, it was found that the signatures of V.M.Shanmugam found in the proposals were forged. The appellants suspect the cause of death of V.M.Shanmugam. The income declared by V.M.Shanmugam in the policies and the income stated in the Motor Accident Claim Petition contradict with each other. Fraud vitiates all acts and the Corporation has been deceived by the fraudster. The Corporation denies that the deceased took policies for himself. Therefore, appellants repudiated the claim of the respondent on 18.10.2001.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as prayed for?

3. Whether the repudiation of the claim by the defendants is not proper ?

4. To what relief ?

6. During the course of trial, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined on the side of the