IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 27.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 20.02.2026 SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2025 (Against the order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Appeal No.126/2024 Of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar,Patna)

l.Tata Capital Limited(Formerly Tata Motor Finance Limited)

having its head office at Sir H.C. Dinshaw Building, Office No. 14,14th floor, 16 Horniman Circle,Fort,Mumbai and State Office at:

601, 6th Floor, Kashi Palace, Near Dak Bungalow Chowaraha,P.S.- Kotwali, District-Patna, Bihar Through its authorized representative

2. Branch Manager, Tata Capital Limited (Formerly Tata Motor Finance Limited).

Having it's Branch Office at:

1st Floor, Suzuki Bhavan, Kalambagh Road, Speaker Chowk, Muzaffarpur, BiharA

3.Branch Manager, Tata Capital Limited(Formerly Tata Motor Finance Limited)

having its Branch office at 204, S.H. Chatauni Badhai Tola, P.S.- Chatauni, Motihari,East Champaran,Bihar.

Appellants VERSUS Pramanand Prasad Kushwaha, S/O Ram Prasad Mahto, R/O Village Gola Pakariya Tola Darjiya, P.S.-Lakaura, District- East Champaran Bihar Respondent BEFORE:

HON’BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant (s) Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate (VC)

For the respondent(s) NoneA

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER l.This Second Appeal(SA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 51(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 02.06.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Bihar(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in Appeal No. 126/2024 in which order dated 17.11.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Motihari (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 69/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Appellant herein was also the Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) were also the respondent before the State Commission in First Appeal no. 126/2024 and Complainant before the District Commission in CC/69/2021. For the sake of convenience parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the district Commission.SA has been filed with a delay of 24 days as per calculation made by the registry, Delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in IA no. 10868 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay and the case is taken up on merits.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 25.09.2025. In response to the notice on memorandum of appeal, None appeared for the respondents despite service; Accordingly respondent is proceeded ex-parte on merits as per order dated 27.11.2025.Respondent has filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 13.01.2026 same will be taken into account while deciding the case .

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the complainant and as emerged from the Second Appeal, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

4.1 The Complainant availed a loan in the sum of Rs.3, 00,000/- under Loan Agreement No. 5002503835 from Opposite Party No.3 (Branch office of Appellant Company herein) on 31.12.2017 for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle from Tata Motors, Motihari. A further sum of Rs.34,000/- was collected by the Opposite Parties for insuring the said vehicle for a two-year period, with an additional amount of Rs. 971.43/- being levied, yet the insurance coverage was furnished for only 35 months. It is further averred that, up to 17.06.2021, a total of 24 instalments aggregating to Rs. 2,71,328/- were credited to the loan account. The Complainant subsequently defaulted on the next instalment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but despite governmental directives, interest was unlawfully charged on his account. Additionally, the C