IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A.NO.689/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.101/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Erode)

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

1. M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager Muthaiah Complex, 11/67, First Floor, Mettur Road, Erode- 638 001

2. M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited Rep. by its General Manager Commercial Office M/s. M. Arunachalam No.41, 14^th Main Road, AL Block, Counsel for Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 002 Appellants / 1st & 2nd Opposite parties Vs.

A. Palanisamy S/o. Arumugam No.42A, Ayyanarappan Koil Street Served called absent Erode- 638 001 Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission has allowed the complaint as against the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.20.9.2024 in CC.No.101/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant 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 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2. The parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission in the original complaint.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had borrowed two personal loans from the opposite party/ finance company. Due to loss in his business, he could not make the repayment of loan dues for last few instalments. Inspite of explaining his financial position, and requesting for some more time to remit the loan, the opposite parties have troubled the complainant by demanding the payment of loan amount, by sending muscle man to house, by seizing his vehicle etc. Therefore, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant had filed a complaint, before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to furnish the loan account statements, and to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation, alongwith cost of Rs.20000/-.

4. The Appellants/ 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, and the 3^rd opposite party had appeared through counsel, have not filed their written version, within the statutory period, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the 1^st Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and had directed the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to furnish the loan account statement and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.10000/-. Aggrieved over the said order, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had filed this appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants/ 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had submitted before this commission that the allegations raised in this complaint requires detailed evidence and in a summary procedure the same cannot be decided. Moreover, arbitration proceedings had been initiated by the opposite parties against the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton. If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties will have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

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

7. Considering the points in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants, I am of the opinion that there is some force in the submission of the appellant