##PAGE1##

1

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

RP.NO. 04 OF 2026 AGAINST ORDERS IN IA.NO. 476 of 2025

IN CC.NO. 597 OF 2025,

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY

Between:

M/s TVS Credit Service Limited, 11^th Floor, T-19, Towers Building,

H.No.5-4-156/157/173 to 184, Indira Nagar, Ginwala Compound,

M.G.Road, Rani Gunj, Hyderabad- 500 003, Rep. by its Authorised Area Legal Manager.

..…Revision Petitioner/Respondent /Opposite Party

And:

M.Venkatesh, S/o Srinivas, Aged about 28 years, Occ.: Driver,

R/o 1-5-486, Near Sivaji Statue, Phanigiri Colony, Chiatanyapuri, Hyderabad -500 060.

…..Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Respondent /Opposite Party:

M/s N.Raghuveer

Counsel for the Respondent /Petitioner/Complainant :

M/s Nerusu Srinivasa Rao.

QUORUM HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

FRIDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX

*******

2

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Respondent/Opposite Party under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to allow the Revision Petition and to set aside the order in IA No.476/2025 in CC 597/2025 dated 19.12.2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy District and to pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint as the complainant and the opposite party.

3. (a) The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a driver by profession and submitted all the required documents for sanction of loan from opposite party. On 23.02.2024, the opposite party sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,60,363/- and the complainant purchased a Toyota Innova 2015, 8 seater model to ply it as a cab for his livelihood. The loan was sanctioned for 48 months tenure and EMI payable was Rs.16,903/-. He paid the EMIs regularly till March 2025 and thereafter, owing to his health condition could not ply the vehicle and service the loan. When the opposite party contacted him, he sought for time to pay the EMIs and despite agreeing to his request, they issued a demand notice on 12.06.2025 and vide the notice, they demanded him to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs.4,88,207.48ps. which includes the principal amount with additional finance charges and cheque bounce charges. He paid two EMIs for Rs.33,806/- on 05.09.2025, yet, the vehicle was seized on 24.11.2025. He approached the opposite party to accept the balance

EMIs and release his vehicle but to no avail.

3

b) The complainant filed the Consumer Complaint vide No.595/2025 and has preferred the IA 476/2025 on 09.12.2025 seeking the release of his vehicle i.e. TOYOTA INNOVA 2015 Model, by receiving the amount of four EMIs. The District Commission served notice on the opposite party directing them to appear on 19.12.2025 to file their counter, failing which the petition will be decided on merits. Notice in IA 476/2025 was served on the opposite party on 13.12.2025. The tracking report is also filed evidencing the fact that the notice in the IA was served on the opposite

party.

4. The representation made by the opposite party in this Revision Petition is that the District Commission passed the interim order in IA No.476/2025 directing the release of the vehicle without permitting to file

counter.

5. Perusal of the order dated 19.12.2025 which is now being challenged reveals that Advocate N.Raghuveer filed vakalat on behalf of the opposite party and filed a memo stating that they have not received the complaint copy and accompanying documents, except the notice in this IA. The District Commission observed that the complainant filed a memo enclosing a DD for Rs.70,000/- in favour of