##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/FA/856/2024 (Against the Order dated 30th November 2022 in Complaint No. DC/566/CC/19/410 of the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Trissur)

WITH SC/32/IA/304/2026 (EARLY HEARING IN STAY)

HERO FINCORP LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 34 , VASANT VIHAR , COMMUNITY CENTRE BASANT LOK , NEW

DELHI,DELHI.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

PONTHAKARAN ANTONY RAJJI PRESENT ADDRESS - PONTHAKARAN HOUSE,THRISSURTHRISSUR,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO

DATED: 24/03/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.856/2024

ORDER DATED : 24.03.2026

(Against the order in C.C.No.410/2019 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Hero FinCorp Ltd., having its Registered Office 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 represented by its

Authorised Signatory, Joby P.V.

(by Adv. B. Vasudevan Nair & Adv. Harikumar G. Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Ponthekkan Antony Raphy, Ponthekkan House, Thrissur

(by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.410/2019 on the files of the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short, ‘the District

Commission’).

2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging

deficiency in service in connection with the charging of foreclosure amount by the opposite party when the loan availed by the complainant was closed before the expiry

of the term stipulated in the agreement.

2. The opposite party was set ex-parte.

3. Before the District Commission, the complainant filed the proof affidavit.

Exhibits P1 to P4 were also marked for the complainant. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refundRs.4,60,670.40/- to the complainant with 12% interest. The District

Commission also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was

not served with the notice issued by the District Commission and hence, the appellant did not get the opportunity to file the written version, and consequently, the order

passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.

6. It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that on

22.11.2019, the District Commission declared that there was deemed service of notice. On the very same date, the District Commission set the opposite party ex-parte. The

postal envelope would show that the notice was returned with the endorsement ‘addressee left’. Even if the District Commission had taken the above endorsement as sufficient service of notice on the opposite party, the District Commission ought not to have set the opposite party ex-parte within 45 days of declaring service of notice on

the opposite party.

7. As per Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the

opposite party can file written version within a period of 30 days or the extended period of another 15 days. The Hon’ble National Commission in Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Minati Dei and another

(Revision Petition No.1947/2019) held in paragraph 14 as hereinbelow:-

“In the present case, the Petitioner/OP1 received the notice before the District

Forum on 13.07.2015. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the Written Version is 30+15 days under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The prescribed limitation for filing the Written Version lapsed on 26.08.2015. However, the learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner on 28.07.