Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/458/2022

The Manager Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., 2/3 Jothi Theatre Road , Vavipalayam Tiruppur - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K.Sam No. 17/39 First Street Tiruppur - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arunachalam

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                             BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                         Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL              MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.458/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.27/2021 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruppur)

 

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

1.       The Manager

          Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited

          2/3, Jothi Theatre Road

          Vavipalayam, Tiruppur- 641 601

 

2.       The Manager

          Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited

          1056C, First Floor, U R House                      M/s. M. Arunachalam

          Avinashi Road                                                  Counsel for

          Coimbatore – 641 018                            Appellants / Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

J.K. Sam

S/o. Karunanidhi

Door No.17/39, First Street                                   Served  called absent

Tiruppur                                                          Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.26.7.2022 in CC. No.27/2021.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he had purchased a Maruthi Eco Van by availing loan from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.360000/-.  The EMI was fixed @ Rs.9000/- per month for 60 months.  After availing loan, the complainant used to repay regularly from February 2019 to March 2020.  But due to sudden lockdown due to covid pandemic the complainant could not remit the EMI regularly. Therefore, he remitted a sum of Rs.65000/- towards EMI in the month of August 2020, towards five months due.  Subsequently he remitted a sum of Rs.9300/- each as instructed by the opposite party towards EMI for the month of September to November 2020.  Thus the complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.2,37,000/- totally.  Eventhough, the opposite parties, without any prior intimation had seized the vehicle in the absence of the complainant from his house, when he approached the opposite parties, the complainant was instructed to remit Rs.18600/- towards the due.  Inspite of the remittance of the said amount, the vehicle was not handed over, instead the opposite party had sent a letter on 25.1.2021 intimating that the vehicle of the complainant had been sold to some third party, and instructed the complainant to remit Rs.9573/- towards the balance amount alongwith 3% interest, within 7 days.  Therefore, the opposite parties had committed negligence, and has caused loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission.

 

3.       The   Appellants/ opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.150000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. The opposite parties also further directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant.   Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted      that since the complainant failed to comply with the demand made by notice dt.5.1.2021, the vehicle was sold in auction for a sum of Rs.370000/-.  A further sum of Rs.9573/- is outstanding, therefore the complainant was called upon to remit the balance amount.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.   The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       Respondent/ complainant, though served, remained absent before this Commission. Therefore we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

6.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that deciding the matter after considering the defence of the otherside would always be justifiable.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties in not appearing before the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.12.1.2023 we have directed the appellants/ opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 19.1.2023, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruppur in C.C.No.27/2021 dt.26.7.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruppur, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thiruppur on 20.2.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellants/opposite parties shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

 

 The amount deposited, by the appellants, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                              R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/