IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

M.P.Sr.No.379/2019

in

C.C.No.22/2016

THURSDAY, THE 09^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.

TATA AIA Life,

Registered & Corporate office,

14^th Floor, Tower A.Peninsula,

Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party

-Vs-

1. A.Tharini,

No.50D3, Jeeva Nagar,

Nagercoil – 629 002,

Kanyakumari District. 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2. M/s Cholamandalam Investment and

Finance Company Limited,

Registered Office at No.2 “Dare House”,

NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite Party

Counsel for Petitioner/ Opposite Party-1 : Mr.B. Vijayakarthikeyan,Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Mr.M.Azeem, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent-2 /Opposite Party-2 : Mr.K.Venkateswaran, Advocate.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 31.08.2021 and upon perusing

the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/1^st opposite party application to

condone the delay in filing petition to set aside ex-parte order.

2.

In the petition affidavit, the petitioner/1^st opposite party has

averred as follows;- The previous counsel engaged by the petitioner/1^st opposite

aprty has relinquished himself from the service without giving proper information to the

petitioner/1^st opposite party. Unfortunately there was no other panel advocate present

at that time. Hence petitioner/1^st opposite party was not able to follow up the case

Appointment of new advocate through empanelment and producing the case

documents from previous engaged counsel has caused the unwanted delay. Due to the

above said reasons the petitioner/1^st opposite party was not able to file written

statement in time the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the above said

bona-fide reasons. Unless the delay in filing set aside petition and exparte decree

against the petitioner/1^st opposite party are condone and set aside, the petitioner/1^st

opposite party would be subject to great prejudice. Therefore to condone the delay in

filing the set aside petition by petitioner/1^st opposite party.

3. The application was called before this Commission for deciding maintainability of

the application.

4. The respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint under insurance claim

taken by his deceased husband borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the 2^nd

opposite party on 13.03.2013. The property belongs to the complainant has been

mortgaged for the loan. The 2^nd opposite party received three undated cheques from

the complainant’s husband as security, the borrower died on 29.10.2014 due to sudden

cardiac arrest. The claim was illegally declined to honor on false grounds that the

psychiatric bodily disability of deceased was not disclosed in the application.The

complainant filed the complaint after issuance of pre suit notice to the opposite parties

claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- in loan account of the complainant with the 2^nd

opposite party as per the insurance policy and to return the original title deed of the

property after cancelling the equitable mortgage and directing the 2^nd opposite party to

return the three cheques issued as collateral security and directing the opposite party to

pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and multiplication of litigation

taken against the complainant and Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency of service.

5. The complaint was taken on file on 10.11.2016 the opposite parties 1 & 2 were

not appeared after receiving the noti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document