STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/233/2019 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - THARIF BUILDING,GROUND FLOOR,CALICUT ROAD,MANJ Versus SHANAVAS P Y .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,VALLAPUZHA,NILAMBUR(PO)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 07/01/2026 ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.233/2019 ORDER DATED : 07.01.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.362/2014 on the filesof DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Tharif Building, Ground Floor, Calicut Road, Manjeri-676121 (by Adv. Vivek.R & Adv. Mahesh.N.G)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shanavas P Y S/o P H Yoosuf, Puthanpurackal House, Vallapuzha, Nilambur (RS) PO, Malappuram - 679330 ORDER HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.362/2014 on the files of the ‘

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, The District ’

Commission).

2. The complainant purchased a vehicle, availing a loan from the opposite party. The complainant was paying instalments regularly. However, two instalments were due, which were cleared by the complainant on 31.01.2014. Thereafter, the complainant approached the HDFC Bank for availing a loan to purchase a scooter. However, the loan application was rejected by the HDFC Bank stating that the complainant was having adverse CIBIL Score (Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited). Since, the opposite party did not take steps to lift the adverse remarks of CIBIL score, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party received notice. However, the opposite party neither appeared before the District Commission nor filed any written version.

4. The complainant filed the proof affidavit Ext.A1 to A7 were also marked for the complainant. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint.

5. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order passed by the District Commission is not a speaking order and hence the said order is not sustainable. It appears from the order passed by the District Commission that no reason was stated by the District Commission for allowing the complaint. It is elementary that even if the opposite party fails to file any version or participate in the proceedings, it is incumbent upon the Commission to ensure that the complainant has proved his case independently, for which the evaluation of evidence is necessary. However, in this case, the District Commission did not evaluate the evidence and state any reason in the order under appeal for allowing the complaint. It is also to be noted that the proceedings of the District Commission were not transmitted to this Commission along with the records. This Commission sent a reminder for sending the proceedings. However, the said reminder also did not serve any purpose. Suffice it to say that since no reason was stated by the District Commission to allow the complaint, the said order cannot be said to be a speaking order and consequently, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed, order dated 17.07.2015 in C.C No.362/2014 stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Commission with a direction to the District Commission to dispose of the complainant in accordance with the law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides of being heard. The District Commission shall verify whether the opposite p