The court determines the necessity for an opportunity to be granted for hearing where the dismissal was procedural and not on merit.

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)

1. The complainant before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that on 30.07.2020, he had purchased a Sonalika Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN 59 GJ 8302 from the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, in which, he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and Rs.10,500/- towards loan commission. The 3^rd opposite party has assured the complainant for the loan and also for the subsidy of Rs.2,25,000/- from TAHDCO for the purchase of agriculture instruments. Thereafter, the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have obtained the complainant’s signature in the loan application and other documents. Thereafter they colluded themselves to defraud the complainant. Though they availed a loan amount of Rs.5,72,215/-, they informed him that only a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant towards the loan amount. They cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.22,215/-. The complainant had entered into an agreement for tractor loan with the 1^st opposite party. The tenure of the loan period from 05.11.2020 to 05.08.2025 and the interest for the said loan is 16.50%. On 16.02.2021, in the subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, only a sum of Rs.2,14,105/- was credited in his loan account. They cheated the balance amount of Rs.11,000/-. Further, the 3^rd opposite party also demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for the return of R.C. book. On 16.02.2021, the 1^st opposite party had debited a sum of Rs.10,106/- towards the Foreclosure Penalty – due from the complainant’s loan account though there was no pending for payment by the complainant. When the complainant came to know about the fraud committed by the opposite parties, he had approached them in person and asked to adjust the loan account, but, they evaded to do the same. Hence, he had sent a complaint dated 15.03.2023 to the opposite parties to adjust the loan account and also for the return of original RC book, but there was no response from them. Due to their deficiency of service, the complainant’s CIBIL Score was reduced and he could not get the loan from any financial institutions even for his emergency purpose. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the complaint to direct the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the fraudulent service and to direct the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs.33,215/- which was fraudulently received amount and to pay Rs.10,106/- towards Foreclosure Penalty – Due, totally Rs.43,821/- along with interest at 12% and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to return the original R.C. book and for cost.

3. Inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the complainant, there was no representation for the complainant and no proof affidavit has been filed before the District Commission. Hence, the District Commission, Madurai had dismissed the complaint on the ground of non filing of proof affidavit of the complainant. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant 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 01.04.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant had submitted that the non appearance and non filing of proof affidavit of the complainant 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 be