Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/545/2022

Jesuraj santiago - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sathischandran

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

 

BEFORE :                  Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                                        PRESIDENT

 Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                   MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.545/2022

 

(Against order in RBT C.C. No.95/2022 dt.21.10.2022 on the file of the

DCDRC, Ariyalur)

 

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Mr. Jesuraj Santhiago,

S/o. Mr. K.E. Santiago,

No.A 4 B, Cee Dee Yes Regal Palm Gdn.,

Vijaya Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                             … Appellant / Complainant.                                                            

                                                                       

                                                         Vs.

 

1. The Manager,

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Raheja Towers,

Chennai – 600 002.    

 

2. The Managing Director,

Customer Service Head,

Bajaj Capital Ltd.,

Regd. and Corporate Office,

Bajaj House,

No.97, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 110 019.                                             … Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                     : M/s. Sathia Chandran

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party   : M/s. M. Arunachalam

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party  : M/s. S. Hariprasad

 

This appeal coming before us 24.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

 

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  ( Open Court).

  

1.       This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur made in RBT C.C. No.95/2022, dated 21.10.2022,  has dismissed the complaint for non-appearance and for non- filing of proof affidavit of the complainant for a long time.

2.           The appellant herein has filed the complaint as against the opposite party alleging deficiency of service for the following reliefs:

            (i) To refund a sum of Rs.34,702/- being the pre-closure charges along with due rate of interest till its realization.

           (ii) To pay the due rate of interest for Rs.52,766/- being  the 1^st opposite party had realized from the complainant though ECS for June 2016 & July 2016 even after the payment of entire loan amount on 20.05.2016 itself.

         (iii) To pay a sum of Rs.22,748/- being the interest for arranging funds for repayment.

            (ii) To pay the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant with cost.

 

3.         In the said complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant has not been filed for a long time to prove the allegations made in the complaint inspite of sufficient opportunities that were given to him.    Finally, when the matter came up on 21.10.2022, the complaint was dismissed for not filing of proof affidavit as well as for non-appearance of the complainant.    Against which, the present appeal has been filed.

4.         Though the conduct of the appellant exhibits the lethargic attitude, when the case had come up for hearing on 02.03.2023 in order to provide an opportunity to the appellant / complainant to prosecute the case on merits, this appeal was allowed on a condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to be payable to the Legal Aid Account, SCDRC drawn in favour of the Registrar, SCDRC, Chennai on or before 23.03.2023.  

5.         Today, when the matter again appeared in the list, it is reported by the Counsel for appellant that the conditional order has been complied with.  Hence, the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur in RBT C.C. No.95/2022 dt. 21.10.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Commission, Ariyalur with a direction to restore the complaint on their file.   The District Commission, Ariyalur is further directed to issue fresh notice to the parties by fixing a fresh date of hearing and on their appearance proceed with the case in accordance with law. 

            In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur in RBT C.C. No.95/2022 dt.21.10.2022, and the DCDRC, Ariyalur is directed to restore the compliant on the file for fresh disposal.

The District Commission, Ariyalur is directed to issue fresh notice to the parties by fixing a fresh date of hearing and on their appearance to proceed with the case in accordance with law on merits.  

 

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                R. SUBBIAH

                         MEMBER                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

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