IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A.NO.855/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.96/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai)

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., CIN:L65110MH1985PLC038137 Maran Complex, 1568/J1, 1^st Floor M/s. Meera Gnanasekar Vellore Main Road, Vengikkal Counsel for Tiruvannamalai- 606 604 Appellant / 1^st Opposite party Vs.

1. K. Venkatesan S/o. Kuppusamy No.173, Nadar Street Mandakulathur Village, Polur Taluk, Served called absent Tiruvannamalai District 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

2. The Branch Manager Surya Tractor Tafe Tractors Authorised Dealer No.4/107, Kurinji Nagar Vengikkal, Polur Main Road Served called absent Tiruvannamalai- 606 604 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for a certain direction to the opposite parties. The District Commission has allowed the complaint in part as against the opposite parties. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.4.2025 in CC.No.96/2024.

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 opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant 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 purchased a tractor from the 2^nd opposite party, by obtaining loan from the 1^st opposite party. The loan amount has to be paid @ Rs.39,500/- each for 20 instalments. The allegation of the complainant is that inspite of repeated requests, the 2^nd opposite party had not got the Tractor registered with RTO, eventhough the complainant was paying the loan instalments due to the pressure of the 1^st opposite party. Therefore, 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 return the instalment amount and advance amount of Rs.3,10,500/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation for the loss caused alongwith compensation of Rs.12 lakhs for mental agony and to pay cost.

4. The opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, 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 opposite parties, and thus had directed the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.3,10,500/- towards the instalment amount and the advance amount paid by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the 1^st opposite party has filed this appeal.

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

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party had submitted before this commission that the registration of a vehicle ought to have been applied before the RTO only by the owner of the tractor or by the authorized dealer or the manufacturer of the tractor on behalf of the owner. The appellant/ 1^st opposite party has no authority in any manner to process the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The non- appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton. If an opportunity is provided, the appellant shall have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus prayi