Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/426/2022

Authorised Signatory, M/s. RBL Bank Ltd No.179E Mahaveer Street ShriShahu Market Yard Kolhapur-5 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lalit Dugar No.44 Pillior Koil st.,AnnaNagar West Chennai 40 - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arunachalam

05 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.426/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.110/2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

RBL Bank Limited

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

The Manager

No.179E, Mahaveer Street

Shri Shahu Market Yard

Kolhapur – 416 005

 

Also at:

RBL Bank Ltd.,

Unit 306-311, JMD Megapolis                                   M/s. N. Arunachalam

Sohna Road, Sector 48                                                  Counsel for

Gurgaon – 122 018                                        Appellant / Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

Lalit Dugar

S/o. Nortanmal Dugar

L-401, The Metrozone

No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street                                          M/s. Thirumaran

Anna Nagar West                                                         Counsel for

Chennai – 600 040                                           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.26.4.2022 in CC. No.110/2019.

 

          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 party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant was granted a credit card facility by the opposite party bank, and he had been using the said facility.  Later he came to know that he had only a limited facility of the credit card.  Therefore, he had settled the credit card account for the period from 16.1.2017 to 15.2.2017 and thereafter he had not used the credit card.  The complainant also requested to close the credit card facility by the opposite party.  Inspite of requests by the complainant through telecall and by e-mails the opposite party had not closed the credit card facility, instead raised bill for a sum of Rs.2950/-.  Adding fuel to the fire, the opposite party had also issued upgraded card to the complainant and charged a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the issue of the upgraded card.  The requests of the complainant through repeated emails all went in vain, and to his shock the opposite party issued a demand notice dt.15.5.2018 through their counsel demanding the outstanding amount.  As per the statement of the opposite party, the complainant owes a sum of Rs.8802.48/- as on date, which is incorrect.  The opposite party also added the name of the complainant in the defaulters list in CIBIL.  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 pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, and also to direct the opposite party to remove the name of the complainant from the CIBIL records, with respect to the said amount of Rs.8802.48/-.   

 

3.       The  Appellant/  opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, directing the  Appellant/ opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- towards mental agony and loss, and to remove the name of the complainant from the CIBIL records pertaining to the amount of Rs.8802.48/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost.   Aggrieved over the said exparte order, this appeal has been preferred by the opposite party as appellant herein.

 

4.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was served with the summons by the District Commission and entered appearance by filing vakalat.  But due to the outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, the opposite party could not file their version and follow the case further.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party has a fair chance of succeeding the matter.  The non-appearance before the District Commission by the appellant is neither willful, nor wanton.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter on merit. 

 

 6.      On careful consideration of the materials on record and on hearing the submissions, this commission is of the considered opinion that there is some force in the submission of the appellant.  Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice the appeal could be allowed for the purpose of remanding back the matter for fresh consideration. Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the appellant/opposite party by remaining absent before the District Commission, by way of order dt.30.12.2022, we have directed the appellant to deposit a  sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 4.1.2023.   Since the conditional order is complied with and a proof of compliance is filed, the appeal is allowed and the complaint is remitted back to the District Commission for fresh consideration.

 

 7.      In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.110/2019 dt.26.4.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chennai (North), for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chennai (North) on 30.1.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/ opposite party shall file the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within 3 months from the date of appearance, according to law on merit.  

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

 

   R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                         R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT