Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/439/2022

The Manager Authorised Signatory Bajaj Financial Servaice KK Road Villupuram - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Bhuvaneswari - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arunachalam

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                        BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                                       PRESIDENT

                                      Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                       MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.439/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.9/2020 on the file of the DCDRC, Villupuram)

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

 

The Manager (Loan Section/

     Authorised Signatory)

Bajaj Financial Service                                        M/s. M. Arunachalam

Velan Complex I Floor                                               Counsel for

K.K.Road, Villupuram                                       Appellant / Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

K. Bhuvaneswari

W/o. Kannan

No.498, K.K.Road                                              M/s. D.S.Thirumavalavan

Sridhar Nagar                                                             Counsel for

Villupuram District                                              Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.22.7.2022 in CC. No.9/2020.

          This petition 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 party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.    The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had applied for loan of R.1 lakh from the opposite party through online on 25.4.2019.  Subsequently the opposite party also sanctioned a loan of Rs.95000/- on 9.5.2019.  The loan was accepted to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.3862/- per month from 5.6.2019 to 5.6.2020.  The complainant had not defaulted in payment.  While so the opposite party had deducted a sum of Rs.1650/- on 5.8.2020 and 1441/- on 5.9.2020 towards the loan account of the complainant.  When the complainant approached the opposite party it was informed that they have deducted only the interest for future period of one year, which is against the agreed condition.  The act of the opposite party in deducting the interest will cause monetary loss to the complainant.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite party to restrain from conducting financial service, and also to pay a sum of Rs.500000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony, alongwith cost. 

 

3.       The Appellant/ opposite party, though appeared through counsel before the District Commission, failed to file their written version, hence they were set exparte, and an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant by holding that the service of the opposite parties is deficient, and thus directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.150000/- towards compensation and to return the 2^nd loan amount of Rs.74239/- alongwith cost   of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merit. 

4.       Before this commission the opposite party would contend that the complainant had been defaulting in repayment of the EMIs of Rs.5384/- each.  Due to persistent default the opposite party themselves suo-moto granted moratorium to the complainant.  Then the complainant themselves had come forward to foreclose the said loan by reconverting the same to a new Flexi Loan in June 2020.  As per the second loan viz. PLCS Hybrid Flexi Loan availed by the complainant only the interest amount was to be deducted for an initial tenure of 12 months and thereafter EMIs comprising of principal and interest would be deducted for the balance loan tenure.  Therefore, there is no negligence on their part.  They have a fair chance of succeeding the complaint. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

 

5.       We have heard the submissions on eitherside, and perused the materials placed on record. 

 

6.       Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels, we are of the considered opinion that there is some force in the arguments of the appellant/ opposite party , and therefore a chance may be given to the opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not filing their written version though preferred to enter appearance, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing a cost of Rs.3000/-  to be paid to the Respondent’s counsel, 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, Villupuram, in C.C.No.9/2020 dt.22.7.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Villupuram, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Villupuram on 13.1.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite party shall file their Written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the order passed in original complaint.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                          R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT