Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/38/2023

IIFL Home Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer Mr. Rajagopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Samiappan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s V.Balasubramani

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.38 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 22.07.2022 passed in C.C. No.223/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South))

 

                                                     Orders, dated:27.04.2023

 

IIFL Home Finance Limited,

Represented by its Authorized Officer,

Mr. Rajagopal,

No.1, Ramakrishna Street,

Kences Tower, 3^rd Floor,

Office No.3E, Croma Upstair,

North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.             … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

 

- Versus –

A. Samiappan,

A2, Valapathi Road,

Mogappair East,

Chennai – 600 037.                         … Respondent /Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner / Opposite party  : M/s. V. Balasubramani

 

For Respondent /Complainant                : M/s. J. Arokhiaraj

  

This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 22.07.2022 passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.223/2022, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-appearance inspite of receipt of notice and consequently, adjourned the case to 10.08.2022 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     Heard the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.  There was no representation for the Respondent /Complainant.

3.     The Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance before the District Commission inspite of receipt of notice.  When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party stated that he has noted the date wrongly and failed to appear before the District Commission on 22.07.2022.  Unfortunately on 22.07.2022, the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte.   Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:22.07.2022.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the opposite party pending will further delay the matter.  Irrespective of the reason assigned by the opposite party for non-appearance, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this Revision Petition could be allowed by setting aside the exparte order passed by the District Commission so that, the appellant will have a chance to contest the case on merits.

4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22.07.2022 passed in C.C. No.223/2022 by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite Party shall file his Vakalath, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.223/2022 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2023.