Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/19/2021

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ammapettai Branch, Ammapettai, Anthiyur Taluk 638 311 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Viswanathan, S/o.p.Duraisamy, kurichi Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Mahesh

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                   BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                  Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL              MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.19/2021

(Against order in CC.NO.37/2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)

 

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

The Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Ammapettai Branch                                                     M/s. S. Makesh

Ammapettai                                                                   Counsel for

Anthiyur Taluk – 638 311                                   Appellant / Opposite party

 

 

                                                         Vs.

Viswanathan

S/o. P. Duraisamy

Ka/No.243 A, Kondithottam

Anandapalayam, Kurichi Village                                       Served absent

Bhavani Taluk, Erode District                                   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.22.1.2020 in CC. No.37/2019.

 

          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:

 

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 had borrowed agricultural loan for buying tractor, from the opposite party, by pledging the original gift settlement deed No.1154/2007.  Even after settlement of entire loan due by the complainant, the opposite party had not returned the above settlement deed hypothecated with them at the time of availing loan.  Hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to return the document, alongwith compensation and 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,  directing the appellant/opposite party to return the documents alongwith compensation of Rs.40000/-  and cost of Rs.10000/-.    

 

4.       The Respondent /complainant though served remained absent before this commission.  Hence we have heard the appellant and passed the order.

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant had filed a memo before this commission stating that though the notice was received by the bank, it was not brought to the knowledge of the Manager of the bank.  Therefore they could not appear before the District Commission.  In the meantime, the case has been settled between the complainant and opposite party. The fact about the settlement had been not been reported before the District Commission, therefore the exparte order had been passed.  Thus prayed for setting aside the exparte order and to remand back the complaint, to the District Commission, so that appropriate order could be passed by the District Commission by recording the settlement.

 

6.       In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the matter may be remitted back to the District Commission for passing appropriate orders in this regard.  Since the Respondent/ complainant remained absent before this commission, the District Commission shall issue notice to the Respondent/ Complainant for appearance and pass an appropriate order.   

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Erode,  in C.C.No.37/2019 dt.22.1.2020, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Erode, for passing appropriate order, after issuing notice to the Respondent/ complainant.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Erode on 15.7.2022, for taking further instructions.  

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

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                              R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+