Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/427/2022

Manager TVS Credit Services Ltd Jayalakshmi Estates No29 Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai 6 - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.Azhagiri No196 Nadu Street Thirumundavaram Village and Post Thiruvennainallur Circle Villupuram Di - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Arunachalam

14 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.427/2022

(Against order in CC.NO.16/2021 on the file of the DCDRC, Villupuram)

 

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

Manager

TVS Credit Services Ltd.,

Jayalakshmi Estates

No.29, Haddows Road                                      M/s. M. Arunachalam

Nungambakkam                                                      Counsel for

Chennai – 600 006                                        Appellant /Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

R. Azhagiri

No.196, Nadu Street

Thirumundeeswaram Village & Post

Thiruvennainallur Circle

Villupuram District

 

R. Azhagiri

Rep. by his Authorized Agent

N. Subramanian, President                                        M/s. V. Balaji

Valavanur Regional Consumer Protection Forum            Counsel for

Valavanur – 605 108                                        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.13.5.2022 in CC. No.16/2021.

 

          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 party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.        The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant  purchased TVS Scooty 110 CC bike on 25.1.2019, by availing loan facility from the opposite party to the tune of Rs.58,670/-.  The said amount was agreed to be paid in twenty four equal monthly instalments @ Rs.3081/- p.m.,  The complainant was paying the EMI regularly.  Meanwhile, due to covid 19 pandemic, there was complete lock down from March 2020.  At that time the Reserve Bank of India had extended the time limit for remitting the loan amount through bank, from March 2020 upto August 2020.  Whileso, the opposite party had taken the due amount from the complainant’s account for the month of March and April 2020.  In the meanwhile the opposite party had also sent their men to the complainant’s house for recovering the money.   The complainant had informed about the same to the opposite party by his letter dt.3.11.2020.  For which, the opposite party had sent a reply dt.5.11.2020, stating that the complainant had to pay the due amount of Rs.26464/-.  But the fact is that the complainant had to pay only three instalments @Rs.3081/- each.  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 handover the RC book and No objection certificate for his vehicle, by receiving the balance three instalments, and also to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation alongwith cost. 

 

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, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.3500/-.     Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite party had filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted      that the complainant committed default in remitting the instalments.  The said fact was clearly narrated in their reply to the legal notice dt.3.11.2020 .  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 party has 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 appellant / opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.30.1.2023 we have directed the appellant/ opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 13.2.2023, 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. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Villupuram in C.C.No.16/2021 dt.13.5.2022, 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 14.3.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/opposite party 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 appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

   R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                        R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT