Maruthairaj, v. The Branch Manager,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 Maruthairaj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Plot No.44, Venkatesh Nagar, Valady, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District.

2.Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Tab Complex, Trichy - 1.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the estimate of Rs.3,21,232/- which was estimated by the Ashok Leyland Company for repairing the vehicle bearing No. TN-48-AA-4971 Light Diesel Van DOST LS under Policy No. 3379/00927996/000/01, where the insurance covered from 02.09.2014 to 01.09.2015. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Murugesan For Respondents : No Appearance for R.1 & R.2

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. There is no representation on the side of the respondents. The insurance company has been served and even though their name is printed in the cause list, they are not chosen to enter appearance.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-48-AA-4971. It was also duly insured with the respondents. When the insurance policy was in force, the vehicle met with an accident. The repair expenses were estimated as Rs.3,21,232/-. The vehicle was repaired and the second respondent was called upon to honour the claim. The second respondent issued impugned communication dated 08.05.2015 repudiating the claim. The said communication reads as follows: 2/6

3/6

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the claim was sought not for any personal injury but for damage to the vehicle. The impugned communication does not address this aspect at all. It stands quashed. Since the second respondent has not considered the petitioner's claim with regard to damage of the vehicle, the matter may have to be remanded to the second respondent once again. Instead doing so, I permit the petitioner to lodge complaint before the jurisdictional consumer forum. If the complaint is filed by the petitioner within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the jurisdictional consumer forum shall entertain the same without reference to limitation. Notice will be issued to the respondents and to the opposite parties and the complaint will be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months thereafter.

4. This writ petition is disposed of with the following terms: a) The impugned communication issued by the second respondent is quashed;

b) the petitioner is permitted to move the jurisdictional consumer forum. The jurisdictional consumer forum shall deal with the petitioner's complaint as directed above. 4/6

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.07.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2.The Executive Officer, Ilayankudi Town Panchayat, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District.

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 21.07.2023 6/6