IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.654/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.205/2024 on the file of the DCDRC,Villupuram)

DATED THIS THE 22^ndDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 The Branch Manager Five Star Business Finance Limited

2^nd Floor, Hospital Road M/s. M. Uma Shankar Villupuram City Counsel for Villupuram- 605 602 Appellant /Opposite party Vs.

Thangavel S/o. Kandasamy Mariamman Koil Stret Vaiyalamur Village Kanai Post, Vikravandi TalukIn person Villupuram District Respondent/Complainant TheRespondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission has partly allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.31.1.2025 in CC.No.205/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and the Respondent in person, 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

JUSTICE 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 the complainant had borrowed loan from the opposite party finance company, by mortgaging his vacant land. After paying certain instalments, the complainant could not repay the loan instalments. Thereafter, the opposite party had demanded the repayment by threatening the complainant. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation, alongwith cost.

3. The Appellant/ opposite party, inspite of service of notice, had failed to appear 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 party and has directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for punitive damage, alongwith a sum of Rs.10000/- towards cost. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite party has filed the present appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh consideration.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted before this commission that the opposite party had followed due process of law and had stuck the possession notice on the door of the complainant as per the guidelines of the RBI. The complainant had been defaulting in payment of monthly instalments and the same would attract delayed interest charges and penal charges as per the loan sanction agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Thenon-appearance before the District Commission, is neither willful nor wanton. The opposite party has a good case to defend. If an opportunity is provided, the opposite partywill have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party has further submitted before this commission, that the opportunity for filing version, which was denied by the Commission below, may be provided in order to contest the case on merit, since they have a good defence on their part. Considering the above submission of the appellant/ opposite party, I am of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the appellant, to contest the case on merit. However, on considering the lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite