KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 354/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 196/2022 of CDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 1st Floor, Sri Sankaram Buildings, Kollam-TVM NH Road, Chathanoor P.O., Pin-691 572 represented by its Power of Attorney.
(By Adv. Abhishek R.V)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Shylaja V., D/o Vijayamma, Parakulathputhan Veedu, Paravoor, Meenadam now working and residing as House Keeper at Land Mark Residency, Near Bank of Baroda, SBM XV/106, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This appeal is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 196/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (District Commission for short) against the final order dated 21.03.2023, allowing the complaint.
2. According to the complaint filed by the respondent herein, she had purchased a Grand i10 Magna car bearing registration No. KL-02 BK 6293, availing a loan from the appellant. The instalments were being paid accurately from the year 2021 onwards, even during the Covid-19 period. The closing date of the loan was in February 2026. The respondent alleged that when she could not pay two monthly instalments due to her illness the appellant inflated the said amount and said that four instalments were defaulted. Thus they committed unfair trade practice. They had also tried to seize the vehicle forcibly. Therefore she sought for being provided with the accurate figures and for compensation.
3. Though notice was served on the appellant, they did not appear before the District Commission. Therefore, they were set ex-parte. The complainant was examined as PW1 and a copy of the Registration Certificate was marked as Ext. A1. On the basis of the available evidence, the complaint was partly allowed directing the appellant to provide the exact account statement to the complainant/respondent within one month. The appellant is also restrained from taking forcible possession of the vehicle. Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said order that this appeal is filed.
4. This appeal has come up before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, despite receipt of notice the appellant had neither appeared nor filed their written version. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 they have no further opportunity to file their written version. In such a circumstance, the proper procedure to be followed by the District Commission is to proceed to finally dispose of the complaint, ex-parte. That is exactly what the District Commission has done in the present case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission. No useful purpose will be served by admitting this appeal because the appellant has lost the opportunity to put forward their case.
For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
