IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

F.A.No.101/2016

(Against the order made in C.C.No.213/2013 dated 07.11.2016 on the file of the

District Forum, Madurai.)

MONDAY, THE 19^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

1. The Manager,

M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Branch Office I, No.39/40,

Saratha Shopping Complex,

Simmakkal,Madurai-1. 1^st Appellant/1^st Opposite Party

2. The Regional Manager,

M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Regional Office,

No.1, Bankur Dharmasala Building,

3^rd Floor, 6-A,West Veli Street,

Madurai-1. 2^nd Appellant/2^nd Opposite Party

-Vs-

P.Gunasekaran,

S/o Periya Karuppan,

Door No.1/94,

Veerapandi,

Thirumalpuram (Post),

Madurai – 625 014. Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Appellants-1&2/Opp.parties-1&2 : Mr.M.Mahendravarman, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.S.Nallazhagusakthivel, Advocate.

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 05.08.2022 and on

hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this

Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Madurai, made in C.C.No.213/2013 dated 07.11.2016 this appeal has been

preferred by the opposite party , Insurance company.

2. The facts:

The complainant purchased Hero Honda Splendor Plus two wheeler in the year

2010. The Registration Number is TN 59 AQ 7098. It was insured with the first opposite

party and the period of insurance is from 24.11.2010 to 23.11.2011. On 31.08.2011 the

complainant parked his two wheeler infront of a tea shop to have a tea. After some

time, he returned and found that his two wheeler was missing. In that place, yet

another two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor Plus with Registration No TN 63 A 7275, was

parked . The complainant believed that some other person wrongly took away his two

wheeler instead of TN 63 A 7275 which was parked and unclaimed. The complainant

made enquiries and searches about the owner of unclaimed vehicle and on 04.09.2011

he lodged a complaint with the police and produced the unclaimed vehicle. The fact

was immediately reported to the insurance company and they asked the complainant to

wait for the investigation report. The police on 12.07.2013 filed a Challan that the

vehicle was undetected. Later the complainant sent a notice on 19.08.2013 for which

there is no reply. Hence, on 30.09.2013 an advocate notice was sent for which they

sent a reply as if the claim was repudiated. Hence, he filed this complaint seeking the

value of the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/-

as for deficiency in service and also cost of the proceedings

3. The opposite parties filed their written version stating that, the vehicle was

stolen because it was left unattended which is against policy condition and the claim

intimation was given on 13.09.2011 and after perusing the investigation report the

Regional Office had repudiated the claim. As per the policy condition the claim has to be

intimated within 48 hours of theft hence the claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum after perusing the pleadings, evidence and documents, partly

allowed the complaint found that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service

and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.37,573/- towards the value of the

vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony

Click Here to Read the rest of this document