Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3637
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, Susee Auto Limited – Appellant
Versus
A. Mariya Jeyakumar – Respondent
F.A. No.382/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. D. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: M/s. B. Arun
Non-appearance at the District Commission led to an ex parte decision, prompting the court to allow an appeal for fresh disposal on merits.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal against ex parte order - Non-appearance leading to ex parte decision - The complaint regarding excessive ECS deductions and demand for compensation was initially favored by the District Commission, prompting appeal for reconsideration. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Legal Aid - Imposition of condition for allowing appeal - A prerequisite was mandated for costs to be paid to facilitate appeal process thus highlighting equitable treatment. (Paras 4)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged improper ECS deductions totaling Rs.10,089 from his bank account by the opposite party related to a loan for a two-wheeler, prompting legal action after the complaint was ex parte ruled in favor of the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the District Commission for fresh adjudication concerning merits.
Issues: Main issues included the validity of the ex parte decision due to the opposite party's non-appearance and the appropriateness of sanctioning the ECS deductions challenged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found grounds for reconsideration based on the non-feasance of the appellant and directed the District Commission to reassess the merits of the complaint.
Result: Appeal allowed, matter remanded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint of ecs deductions led to an ex parte order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court allowed the appeal for reassessment of the case. (Para 4) |
| 3. final order remanded to the district commission for fresh disposal. (Para 5) |
THIRU.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 he had purchased a two wheeler namely, Bajaj Discover 110cc, bearing Registration No.TN 92 C 6296 by availing a loan of Rs.53,000/- from the opposite party under the Loan Agreement No.L2WTUT06722874. The said loan has to be repaid in 24 months at Rs.2,776/- per month. The loan amount has been deducted from the complainant’s Indian Overseas Bank Account No.18660100000733, Sethukkuvaithan Branch, Thoothukudi District through ECS mode. On 02.12.2019, the opposite party had deducted Rs.177/- as ECS/NACH return Charges for 42 times, i.e. Rs.7,434/- and again they had deducted Rs.177/- as ECS/NACH return charges for 15 times on 07.03.2020 i.e. Rs.2,655/- and thus totally they had deducted a sum of Rs.10,089/- as ECS/NACH return charges from the complainant’s bank account. On seeing the bank statement, the complainant asked the opposite party to return the said deducted amount, but they refused to return the same. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 11.12.2000, for which, they sent a reply on 04.01.2021 with false averments. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the complaint for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to refund the amount of Rs.10,089/- towards the deductions made by the opposite party and to pay the cost.
3. Though the appellant/opposite party had entered appearance through their counsel before the District Commission, they failed to file their written version and therefore, they were set exparte. Hence, an exparte order was passed in favour of the respondent/complainant by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus directed them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress caused to him and to refund a sum of Rs.10,089/- deducted as ECS charges and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite party had filed this appeal praying to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.
4. When the case had come up for hearing on 23.01.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party had submitted that the non appearance of the opposite party before the District Commission is neither wilful nor wanton. If an opportunity is provided, there is a fair chance in succeeding the case. Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, a condition has been imposed directing the appellant/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of the Circuit Bench of SCDRC, Madurai, on or before 17.02.2025, to allow the appeal. Today when the case appeared in the list, it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission on 23.01.2025 has been complied with. Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thoothukudi passed in C.C.No.01/2022, dated 31.03.2023 and the matter is remanded back to District Commission, Thoothukudi for fresh disposal according to law on merits.
Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thanjavur on 07.04.2025 for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/opposite party shall file not only their vakalath but also written version, proof affidavit, writ
