Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/478/2022

The Regional Manager Bajaj Finserve Personal Loan No.82,83 Pattamangalam Street Mayiladuthrai -1 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mariappan No.2/112 Sai Nagar Railway Station Road Sikkal Post Nagapattinam 108 - Opp.Party(s)

Arunachalam

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                     BEFORE :        Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                PRESIDENT

                                   Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                  MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.478/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.12/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Nagapattinam)

 

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

The Regional Manager

Bajaj Finserv Personal Loan

Branch Office 1^st Floor,                                           M/s. M. Arunachalam

D.No.82,83, Pattamagalam Street                                  Counsel for

Mayiladuthurai- 609 001                                   Appellant / 1^st Opposite party

 

                                                        Vs.

 

1.     M. Mariappan

        S/o. T. Maran

        D.No.2/112, Sai Nagar                                  M/s. P. Adhavanjseral

        Railway Station Road,         Sikkal Post,                         Counsel for

        Nagapattinam-          611108.                            1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.     Proprietor

        Venus Electronics

        D.No.100, Neela East Street                         Served called absent

        Nagapattinam- 611 001                      Respondent/ 2^nd                 opposite party

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint as against the opposite parties. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.1.9.2022 in CC. No.12/2022.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and 1^st Respondent, 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 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.       The parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission in the original complaint.

 

3.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had purchased Carrier Split Air Conditioner 1.0 TON OCTRA-3 Star Airconditioner from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.29000/-, by obtaining personal loan from the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs.19,332/- in favour of the 2^nd opposite party which shall be paid by the complainant by way of instalments.  After paying the entire amount due, the opposite party failed to furnish NOC, and informed that still there was a due of Rs.2867/- to be paid by the complainant.  Inspite of payment of the said amount on 9.11.2017, and repeated reminders sent by the complainant, the opposite party had given the NOC only on 17.7.2018.  Moreover, the opposite party had deposited the cheque issued by the complainant for three times after a period of three years.  For which he was levied a penalty of Rs.295/- per cheque by the bankers.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the 1^st opposite party to stop depositing his cheques to the bank, and to refund a sum of Rs.885/- alongwith interest @12% p.a., and compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-

 

4.       The 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence they were set exparte.  The Appellant/1^st opposite party, filed their reply.   After considering the merit of the matter, the District Commission has held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and had directed the 1^st opposite party to stop depositing the cheques issued by the complainant on and from 1.9.2022, and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation which includes the refund of the cheque return charges @Rs.885/-, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the 1^st opposite party had filed this appeal. 

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party had submitted      before this commission that the complainant had not made his bankers as a party to the proceedings.   The complainant was explained explicitly that whenever there is default in repayment of instalment amount, he will be charged bouncing charges as he has consented for the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ 1^st opposite party.  If an opportunity is provided, the 1^st opposite party shall have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

6.   We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the 1^st Respondent/ complainant and perused the material records as well as the order impugned. 

 

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that an opportunity, which was denied by the District Forum, may be given to the 1^st opposite party, by remanding the case, for fresh disposal, by setting aside the order, which we are unable to deny, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.   Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, accordingly by way of order dt.10.2.2023, we have directed the appellant/ 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 23.2.2023, 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. 

 

8.       Since the 2^nd opposite party remained exparte before the District Commission, and also had not come forward to put forth their defence before this commission, the District Commission need not to send notice to 2^nd   opposite party.  Based on the submissions of the appellant/1^st opposite party and the 1^st Respondent/ complainant, and on the basis of the available records, the District Commission shall decide the complaint afresh on merit.

 

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.12/2022 dt.1.9.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Nagapattinam, for fresh disposal according to law on merit. No order as to cost in this appeal.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Nagapattinam on 24.3.2023, for taking further instructions.  On which date itself, the Appellant/ 1^st opposite party shall appear before the District Commission, and file their vakalat and detailed written version and 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 appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                              R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT