IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.53/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.109/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvarur)

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 LIC Housing Finance Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager M/s. K. Ramesh Door No.5/315, Reynolds Road Counsel for Tiruchirapalli Appellant /Opposite party Vs.

G. Kaliyaperumal S/o. Govindhasamy No.1/77, Pachikadai Street Kavanur Village, Ammaiyappan Post In person Tiruvarur District Respondent/Complainant The Respondent 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.18.11.2024 in CC.No.109/2024.

This appeal is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, this commission has 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 a loan of Rs.35000/- from the opposite party, by depositing his property document. Even after remitting the entire loan amount, the opposite party had not returned the documents deposited with them, and when enquired the opposite party had informed that the documents were misplaced while shifting the office. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party had not taken any step to trace out the document. Therefore, by 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 return the document, and to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation alongwith interest @12%.

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 return the documents within a month of the order or to pay a sum of Rs.100/- for each day of delay, alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. 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 has not acted intentionally and this has happened on human error. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The non-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 party will 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 party, this commission by way of order dt.25.9.2025 has directed the appellant/ opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Respondent/ complainant on or before 29.9.2025, which