Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/57/2018

The Branch Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Co lts - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.Bala - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Ramakrishnan

31 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

 Thiru S. KARUPPIAH                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL              MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.57/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.2/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

 

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MAY 2022

 

The Branch Manager

Sriram Finance

(Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,)

No.27, Prabha Towers, Old No.42-1

Opp: Dhanam Departmental Stores                                                                                               M/s. K.S.Ramakrishnan

Shanthi Nagar, Denkanikottai Main Road                                                                                     Counsel for

Hosur- 635 109                                                                                                                             Appellant / 3^rd Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

1.     Mrs. T. Bala

        W/o. Thillai Baghavath Ruban

        D.No.35/1, Annasamy Colony                                                                                             Served called absent

        Hosur, Krishnagiri District- 635 109                                                                                   1^st Respondent/ Complainant

 

2.     The Proprietor

        S.K.S. Automobiles                                                                                                              Served called absent

        Namakkal Road, Salem                                                                                                       2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Opposite party

 

3.     The Branch Manager

        Shriram Insurance

        Old No.42-1,

        Opp: Dhanam Departmental Stores

        Shanthi Nagar, Denkanikottai Main Road                                                                           Served called absent

        Hosur- 635 109                                                                                                                3^rd 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. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 3^rd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.9.12.2016 in CC. No.2/2014.

 

          This petition is coming 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 3^rd opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.    The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he purchased a car from the 1^st opposite party, which met with an accident on 11.10.2012, due to which the car was damaged.  Therefore, he entrusted the car to the 1^st opposite party for repairing.  When he approached the 1^st opposite party, it was informed that for repairing the car a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- has to be paid.  The 1^st opposite party had informed that the engine of the car was damaged.  In the surveyor report, it was stated that the engine was damaged due to the carelessness of the person who attended the repair work while assembling the car, or due to the carelessness of the driver of the car.  The car was insured with the 2^nd opposite party, by the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party who had paid loan for the purchase of the car, had threatened the complainant by demanding the repayment of loan.  The said car was the main source of income for the complainant.  Therefore, he filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for replacement of the car, alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.

 

3.       The Appellant/ 3^rd opposite party, though appeared before the District Commission, and filed their version, had not subsequently appeared and filed their proof affidavit, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the 1^st  Respondent/ complainant,  directing the 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,973/- towards the repair of the car, and appellant/3^rd opposite party and the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents/ 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties   jointly and severally were directed to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-. 

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/3^rd opposite party had submitted before this commission that the District Forum had failed to note that the complainant cannot maintain this complaint, since the relationship between the appellant and complainant is only a creditor and debtor relationship.  The complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan amount. At no point of time, the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party had threatened the complainant for the non-refund of the loan amount.  Since the appellant had only granted loan for the purchase of the car, they have no role to play in this dispute. The non-filing of proof affidavit is neither willful nor wanton. Thus alleging, the appellant would submit that without providing an opportunity the appellant/3^rd opposite party cannot prove their case. If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party has a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for a chance to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       The District Commission had concluded the case by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of all the opposite parties.   Having considered the submissions made by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party in not appearing before the  District Commission and not filing their proof affidavit, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.11.5.2022 we have directed the appellant/3^rd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal Aid account of the State Commission by way of Demand Draft, drawn in favour of Registrar, State commission on or before 30.5.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  

 

6.       Since the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/ 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties also have been set exparte before the District Commission, and since they have not filed any appeal before this commission by challenging the order impugned, the District Commission need not send notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Based on the proof affidavit filed by the appellant/ 3^rd opposite party, the matter can be decided afresh, in accordance with law. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.2/2014 dt.9.12.2016, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Krishnagiri, for deciding the matter afresh according to law on merit.  This commission is not interfering with the order passed as against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. 

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Krishnagiri on 30.6.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/3^rd opposite party shall file the proof affidavit, written arguments, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to decide the case afresh, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.    

The amount deposited, by the appellant/3^rd opposite party, shall be retained by this commission, until the final order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                         S.KARUPPIAH                                           R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/dRSJ/ ORDERS