M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The 1st opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The 1st respondent/ complainant?s husband had purchased a motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-69 U4057, from the 2nd opposite party, which was insured with the 1st opposite party, covering the period 22.3.2006 to 21.3.2007. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant, met with an accident on 26.5.2006, during the currency of the policy, and died in the accident. The damaged vehicle was given for repair to the 2nd opposite party. Though the surveyor of the 1st opposite party, inspected the damaged vehicle, submitted a report, no amount was given to the complainant, being the legal heir of the owner of the vehicle, that should be construed as deficiency in service. The 1st opposite party, has no right to pay the amount to the 2nd opposite party. In view of the deficiency committed, the 1st opposite party should be directed to pay the cost of the motorcycle, as well a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation. Hence the complaint.
(3.) The 1st opposite party, admitting the insurance, accident, damage caused to the vehicle, resisted the case, interalia contending, that as per the surveyor report, the net assessment of loss was only Rs.27,509/-, that when the claim was lodged, the opposite party requested the complainant to produce the bills, which she failed to produce and that is the reason for not settling the claim, that even now the opposite party is ready and willing to settle the claim, as per the surveyor report, and as such the non-settlement of the claim, cannot be construed as deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;