Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/149/2023

The Manager, TVS Credit Services Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

M. Venkatesh, S/o Late Murugan - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. M. Arunachalam

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 149 of 2023

(Against the Order passed in C.C. No.40 of 2022 dated 26.09.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Kanchipuram @ Chengalpattu)

 

Dated the 28^th day of April 2023

The Manager,

TVS Credit Services Ltd.,

South Phase, Bristol Towers II Floor,

Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.                            .. Appellant / Opposite party.

- Vs –

M. Venkatesh,

S/o. Late Murugan,

No.4/251, Gangaiamman Koil Street,

Egattur, Chennai,

Chengalpattu District.                     .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party  : M/s. M. Arunachalam

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant : M/s. E. Nandha Kumar                                                                    

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 26.09.2022 in C.C. No.40/2022.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the 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.

ORDER

 

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 he availed a loan of Rs.12,24,700/- from the opposite party by hypothecating his car namely; Toyota Innova bearing Registration No.TN 19 AC 9999.  The loan is repayable within 48 months with EMI at the rate of Rs.33,360/- per month which commenced from 07.10.2018.  The opposite party had collected the loan by way of ECS from the complainant’s bank account in Indian Bank, Navalur Village, Thiruporur Taluk.  The complainant foreclosed the entire loan amount on 13.03.2020 in full and final settlement.  The opposite party also issued ‘No Objection Certificate’.  But on 07.04.2020, the opposite party has collected Rs.33,360/- by way of ECS.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party dt. 28.06.2021 but he did not send any reply.  Even after several requests and demands made by the complainant, the opposite party had not come forward to refund the amount of Rs.33,360/-.  Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complaint has been filed for the refund of Rs.33,360/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3.     Though notice was served, the Appellant/ opposite party remained absent before the District Commission and hence on 19.07.2022, he was set ex-parte.   Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.33,360/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the complainant. 

 

4.     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 merits. 

 

5.     Before this commission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and that they have got valid defense and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint.  Further, the counsel for appellant / opposite party submitted that he had not received the copies of typed set of papers filed by the complainant.  That is the reason why, the opposite party was not in a position to file his written version.   Further, in all the foreclosure letters issued by the appellant / opposite party, it is specifically mentioned as follows “3. If you decide to foreclose, please make the payments of the above total amount payable through cash or draft”.  Inspite of informing the customer to foreclose the account by paying the amount in cash or draft, the complainant has made payment by RTGS.  It is denied that the complainant had foreclosed the loan account on 13.03.2020 as per the books of accounts of the opposite party.  the payment of Rs.8,74,000/- was made by the complainant vide RTGS on 30.03.2020.  Further, the opposite party has specifically mentioned that they cannot hold the EMI presentation for the consecutive month if the payment was made after 24^th.  Hence, ECS was presented on 07.04.2020  for a sum of Rs.33,361/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order dt. 26.09.2022 of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

 

6.     When the case had come up before this Commission on 17.04.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite party, to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party, in appearance before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 27.04.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpattu in C.C. No.40/2022 dt.26.09.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, @ Chengalpattu for fresh disposal according to law and on merits after hearing both sides.

 Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, @ Chengalpattu on 01.06.2023 for further proceedings.  The appellant / opposite party is directed to file Vakalath, Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / opposite party before this Commission.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                       R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2023