Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/496/2022

The Divisional Manager, Axis Bank Ramakrishna Road Salem And another - Complainant(s)

Versus

K Govindaraj Salem Main Road Kaveripattinam 635 112 - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sreedhar

31 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.496/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.21/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

 

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

1.       The Divisional Manager

          Axis Bank

          No.41/2, 1^st and 2^nd Floor

          Ramakrishna Road

          Salem – 636 007                                 

 

2.       The Branch Manager

Axis Bank                                                    M/s. R. Sreedhar

No.1/190/3, Royakottai Road                            Counsel for

Rajaji Nagar, Krishnagiri – 1                  Appellants /Opposite parties

 

 

                                                         Vs.

K. Govindaraj

Proprietor

M/s. Abhikavi Nattukozhi

D.No.1, Housing Board                                M/s. Dhanaram Ramachandran

Salem Main Road                                                       Counsel for

Kaveripattinam- 635 112                                  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.5.9.2022 in CC. No.21/2022.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside, 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 the complainant is the account holder in the opposite parties bank.  In the year 2018 the 1^st opposite party had granted OD facility to the complainant for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-, and the interest was fixed at 10.6% p.a.,  But the 1^st opposite party levied 12.1% interest and the complainant was paying an interest @Rs.15,652/-.  The complainant was regularly renewing the loan facility as per the terms and conditions.  But the opposite parties employees negligently had not renewed the OD facility for a period of 6 months, and imposed penalty to the complainant and debited excess amount higher than the fixed interest rate.  The total excess amount debited by the opposite parties from the complainant’s account is Rs.32800/-.  Though the complainant had regularly paid the interest without any default, the 2^nd opposite party had continuously harassed the complainant through officials.  Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties had not stopped claiming the interest.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and to refund a sum of Rs.32,800/- towards cost.

 

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 reimburse the penal interest of Rs.29407/- and a further sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.     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 the complainant had not cooperated for renewal of the loan.  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.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing on bothsides.

 

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.25.1.2023   

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 30.1.2023, 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, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.21/2022 dt.5.9.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Krishnagiri, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Krishnagiri on 27.2.2023, 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