The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing opportunities in consumer disputes.

CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI @ District Court Campus, Madurai - 20 Present : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH … PRESIDENT F.A. No.82/2025 (Against Order dt.28.02.2023 in C.C.No.27/2017 on the file of DCDRC, Thanjavur)

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

1. The Secretary, Thiruvaiyar Taluk Co-Op. Housing Society, Thirumanchana Veedhi, Thiruvaiyaru Town, Thanjavur District.

2. The Regional Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Housing Society, Thanjavur. ... Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Vs.

M. Kumar, S/o. Munusamy, New Agraharam, Thiruvaiyar Taluk, Thanjavur District. … Respondent/Complainant.

Govt. Pleader for Appellants/Opposite Parties : Mr. D. Makson Lobo. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : M/s. S. Gurumoorthy.

The Respondent, as Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an exparte order and allowed the complaint, in part. Against which, this appeal has been preferred praying to set aside the exparte order of the District Commission, Thanjavur dated 28.02.2023 in C.C.No.27/2017.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally, today. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides through video conferencing and upon 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

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)

1. The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that in the year 1997, he had availed a loan from the 1^st opposite party under Loan No.169/97-98 and repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,55,136/-, but, the original documents which were handed over to the 1^st opposite party as security at the time of obtaining the loan have not been returned by the 1^st opposite party. Finally, the 1^st opposite party asked the complainant to bear the charges for the registration of the credit receipt and thereafter, they will return all the original documents to the complainant. Believing their words, on 14.05.2013, the complainant has registered the credit receipt with SRO, Thiruvaiyaru, but thereafter also, the 1^st opposite party has not returned the original documents. Hence, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 08.10.2013 to the opposite parties, but there was no response from them. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the complainant to direct the opposite parties to return all the original documents and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant.

3. Though notices were served on the appellants/opposite parties, they remained absent before the District Commission. 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 parties and thus directed them to return all the original documents to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite parties 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 28.03.2025, the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties had submitted that the non appearance of the opposite parties 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 f