CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI @ District Court Campus, Madurai - 20 Present : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH … PRESIDENT F.A. No.713/2025 (Against Order dt.27.05.2025 in C.C.No.38/2025 on the file of DCDRC, Theni)

TH DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 The Branch Manager, M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Neruji Road, Periyakulam Road, st Theni. ... Appellant/1 Opposite Party.

Vs.

1. Barakath Nishara, W/o. Late. M. Rabeek Ahamed, nd No.33/2, Pallivasal 2 Street, Thandupalayam, Thenkarai, st Periyakulam. … 1 Respondent/Complainant.

2. The Branch Manager, M/s. Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Company, th B-6, 4 Floor, Rathinam Nagar East, Max Sagana Apartments, nd nd Theni – 625 531. … 2 Respondent/2 Opposite Party.

Counsel for Appellant/1 Opposite Party : M/s. M. Senthil Kumar.

Counsel for R-1/Complainant : M/s. S. Vanchinathan.

Counsel for R-2/2 Opposite Party : M/s. Sachin Daga.

The 1 Respondent, as Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an exparte order and allowed the complaint in part. Against which, this appeal has been st preferred by the 1 opposite party praying to set aside the exparte order of the District Commission, Theni dated 27.05.2025 in C.C.No.38/2025.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally, today. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides through video conferencing and upon 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)

st

1. The 1 opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant is that while her husband M. Rabeek st Ahamed was alive, he availed a loan on 14.12.2020 from the 1 opposite party for the purchase of two vehicles, namely, TATA LPT 1918, bearing Registration Nos.TN 60 AH 3771 and TN 60 AF 1062 respectively. He had nd insured the said two vehicles with the 2 opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.19,307/- for each vehicle including for his personal life coverage. While so, the said Rabeek Ahamed died on 27.01.2024 leaving behind the complainant and his children as legal heirs. Hence, the complainant has

submitted her claim form to the 2 opposite party for the two vehicles.

They sanctioned the claim amount for the vehicle bearing Registration

No.TN 60 AH 3771 and the 1 opposite party credited the said claim amount into the complainant’s husband vehicle loan account and on 17.09.2024, issued ‘No objection’ for cancelling the Hypothecation endorsement for the RC book of the above vehicle. So far as the vehicle nd bearing Registration No.TN 60 AF 1062 is concerned, the 2 opposite party instead of honouring the claim, rejected the said claim and also returned the insurance premium of Rs.19,307/- to the complainant’s husband account on 01.07.2024. When the complainant enquired about the rejection of the claim, there is no response from them. Hence, on st

09.07.2024, she wrote a letter to the 1 opposite party, but there was no nd reply from them. She made a complaint to the 2 opposite party’s claim department on 28.11.2024, but they did not reply. Hence, she had sent a legal notice dated 28.12.2024 to the opposite parties to reconsider her st claim. Though both the opposite parties had received the notice, the 1 st opposite party alone sent a reply dated 09.01.2025. On 23.01.2025, the 1 opposite party sent a letter to M/s. Madras Arbitration Solution LLP,

Chennai and followed by it, on 24.01.2025, the 1 opposite party filed a

petition to the Arbitrator against the complainant. On 23.01.2025, summon

has been served upon the complainant by the Sole Arbitrator, Chennai.

The Arbitrator was not appointed on the consent of the complainant and the

appointment of Sole Arbitrator is against law. On 01.02.2023, the complainant sent a reply to the 1 op