Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/54/2023

The Branch Mananger, DCB Bank, - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. Kumar, Proprietor, Harini Impex - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

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

                   Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL                         ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.54/2023

 

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.23/2021 dated:03.11.2022 on the file of the

D.C.D.R.C., Namakkal)

 

TUESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

The Branch Manager,

DCB Bank, Shri Achi Towers,

Old No.445, New No.409, Brough Road,

Perundurai Road,

Erode – 638 011.                                                       ..  Appellant / Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

S. Kumar,

Proprietor,

Harini Impex,

Door No.6/129 A, Chinnamariyamman Koil Street,

Devanangkurichi,

Thiruchengode Taluk,

Namakkal District.                                                     .. Respondent  / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party     : M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh

 

Counsel for the Respondent  / Complainant  : M/s. C. Paraneedaran

 

This appeal coming before us on various dates and for final hearing today on 31.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the Open Court:-

ORDER (Open Court)

Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                       

1.     The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.    

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Namakkal.

3.         The case of the respondent before the District commission is that the complainant was carrying on textile business in the name and style of Harini Impex.  During the course of business, he has availed a loan for a sum of Rs.14,35,535/- on 31.08.2018.   Since the complainant was having an outstanding loan amount of Rs.10,26,797/- with the Axis Bank Ltd., Tiruchengode and the same had been taken over by the opposite party bank and adjusted with the loan sanctioned by them.  Further, a sum of Rs.35,535/- was deducted as insurance premium by the opposite party from his loan account and when the complainant enquired about the same, it was informed by the opposite party that the said amount was paid to the ICICI Lombard Limited.   The complainant was informed that in case any unforeseen happened during the loan period, his legal heirs need not pay the loan amount and the loan amount would be adjusted from the policy amount.    But no policy copy was handed over to the complainant.   In this regard, the complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions.  But till date, he has not received the policy copy.    The complainant reliably understood that the policy copy was not prepared by opposite party till date.  In this regard, the complainant has also sent notice to the opposite party.   Finally left with no other alternative, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service claiming Rs.14,35,535/- being the sum assured, Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, stress etc along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.   

4.         Though notice has been served on the opposite party, he did not appear before the District Commission.  Hence, the opposite  party was set exparte and the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with cost of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5.         Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.

6.         The Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the District Commission has misdirected the facts of the case and had passed an award without analysing the case properly on merits.  When the appellant had come to know about the non-issuance of the insurance policy from the ICICI Limited, immediately the appellant /opposite party had made arrangement to return the insurance premium from the ICICI Lombard and the said premium has also been received by the complainant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.    The opposite party is having a fair chance to succeed the complaint.   The non-appearance of the appellant / opposite party is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the reasons beyond the control.   Thus, he prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

7.         We have heard the submissions on the side of both parties  and perused the materials placed on record. 

8.         Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant, 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 1^st opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Though there is a lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite party in appearing before the Commission, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing a sum of Rs.3,000/-  as cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, State Commission, Chennai, which condition was also 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, Namakkal in C.C. No.23/2021 dt.03.11.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Namakkal for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Namakkal on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite party shall file his Vakalath, 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 merits.  

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

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                    R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.