State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avanse Financial Services Ltd Rep By Its ... vs Bodagala Lava Kumar on 24 March, 2026
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RP.NO.49 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CC.NO. 609 OF 2024,
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
M/s.Avanse Financial Services Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
001 & 002, Fulcrum, A-Wing,
Ground Floor, Sahara Road,
Next to Hyatt Regency, Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400 009, Maharashtra.
Present address:
M/s.Avanse Financial Services Limited,
4th Floor, E-Wing, Times Square,
Gamdevi, Andheri Kurla Road, Marol,
Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 059.
Maharashtra.
....Petitioner/Opp.Party No.2
AND
1.Bodagala Lava Kumar, S/o.Late Bodagala Reddaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Journalist, Indian.
2. Mrs. Bodagala Anitha, W/o.Mr.Bodagala Lava Kumar, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, Indian.
3. Miss. Bodagala Yashaswini, D/o.Mr.Bodagala Lava Kumar, Aged about: 24 years, Occ: Private Employee, Indian.
All are residents of H.No.3-11-20/1/G2, Near Kamineni Hospitals, Chintal Kunta, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 074.
....Respondents/Complainants
4. M/s.Zuno General Insurance Limited, (Formerly known as Edelweiss General Insurance Company Limited), Represented by its Managing Director, Registered office. 2nd Floor, Tower-3, Wing -B, Kohinoor City, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai - 400 070, Maharashtra.
....Respondent/Opp.Party No.1 Counsel for Rev.Petitioner/Opp.Party No.2: M/s.N.B.Sudarshan Counsel for Respondents/Complainants: Notice served Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.1: Notice served 2 QUORAM:
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) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ****** Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon'ble President)
1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 under Section-47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 aggrieved by the docket order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in CC.No.609/2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 and the Respondent No.3/Complainant present in person.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the docket order dated 11.04.2025 was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission setting the Petitioner exparte. The Petitioner was not in receipt of any notice in CC.No.609/2024. He was unaware of the proceedings before the District Commission due to which he was unable to appear before the District Commission during the early stages of the case. He only became aware of the pendency of CC.No.609/2024 when he came to know about another pending case i.e., O.S.No.80/2025 through a software application by name "Lawyer Services".
O.S.No.80/2025 was filed by the Complainants against the Petitioner before the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. When the Petitioner became aware of the said original suit, the Petitioner initiated a litigation search on the E-Jagriti website. Upon checking the case status on E-Jagriti website, the Petitioner discovered that CC.No.609/2024 was posted to 19.05.2025. During the said verification, he came to know about the exparte order passed on 11.04.2025. The 3 Petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings and therefore was unable to appear before the District Commission during the initial hearings. His absence was unintentional and not due to any disregard for the authority or process of the Commission. The Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss if the petition was not allowed and prayed to set aside the docket order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in CC.No.609/2024.
4. (a) The Respondent No.3, party in person contended that the complaint was filed against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 seeking the relief of a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.30,000 U.S. Dollars with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization, both the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to each of the Complainants towards the mental agony, hardship because of their indifferent attitude and indulging in unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards costs.
(b) She further submitted that her brother Bodagala Vamshi Reddaiah intended to prosecute his higher studies at abroad and sought for financial assistance for educational loan and approached the Opposite Party No.2 for sanction of educational loan. The Opposite Party No.2 accepted to advance the said loan to a tune of Rs.26,30,064/- but informed that there should be a co- applicant for the same, though it was an educational loan and no co-applicant was necessary. As the Opposite Party No.2 insisted for a co-applicant, the Complainant No.3 stood as a co-applicant. The loan was sanctioned by Opposite Party No.2 on 27.02.2023 vide their sanction letter dated 01.03.2023. The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that since Mr.Vamshi Reddaiah was travelling abroad, a general insurance policy was mandatory to be taken and introduced Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 stood as holder of the Master General Insurance Policy. Reposing confidence on the said representations of the Opposite Parties, said Bodagala Vamshi Reddaiah subscribed for the insurance policy and paid a sum of Rs.43,161/- as premium for the said policy. A certificate of 4 insurance was also given covering the personal liability death to an extent of one lakh U.S. Dollars and accidental death covering 30,000 U.S. Dollars. Mr.Vamshi Reddaiah appointed his father Mr.B.Lava Kumar as nominee to the said policy. Though the relationship was correctly mentioned in the nominee column, the names were wrongly mentioned. The name of the father was mentioned in the insured column. While so Mr.Bodagala Vamshi Reddaiah travelled abroad on 01.03.2023 but due to the sudden heat stroke of travelling from India to USA and due to the onset of invisible accidental clots and injuries during his travel, he developed onset heart stroke and unfortunately departed his life on 09.03.2023 at 2:47 P.M. at USA before the free look period. His last rites were performed on 13.03.2023 at Mansoorabad Burial Grounds at Hyderabad. Subsequently, the Complainants approached the Opposite Party No.2 to process the claim but the Opposite Party No.2 did not evince any interest despite submitting the death certificate of Mr.Vamshi Reddaiah. Vexed with the indifferent attitude of Opposite Parties, the Complainants issued a legal notice and thereafter filed CC.No.609/2024 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
(c) She further submitted that notices were sent to the Opposite Parties through the Commission. Notice sent to Opposite Party No.2 was returned as „insufficient address‟. The Commission directed to furnish the complete and correct address of Opposite Party No.2 and also permitted to take out personal notice. The personal notice was served upon the Legal Manager of Opposite Party No.2 and the same was endorsed by him on 26.02.2025. As the Opposite Party No.2 failed to make his appearance and file written version within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of service on 26.02.2025, the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 was set exparte and the matter was posted for their evidence affidavit. There was no irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the Commission below to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.
55. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether there is any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order of the District Commission to set aside the same?
6. Point:
On a perusal of the contentions of both the parties, the Revision Petitioner contended that no notice was served upon them in CC.No.609/2024. But the Complainant No.3 contended that notice was served upon the Legal Manager of Opposite Party No.2. On a perusal of the record, the District Commission on 05.03.2025 noted that:
"Complainant counsel present, filed Memo that personal notice is served upon Legal Manager of Opposite Party No.2 with endorsement dated 26.02.2025, called absent. For written version by Opposite Party No.2, call on 11.04.2025."
The record also would disclose that a memo was filed by the counsel for the Complainants on 05.03.2025 along with the acknowledgement and receipt of notice by the Legal Manager of Opposite Party No.2 Company by name Mr.Ramesh Goud. The notice enclosed to the memo would disclose an endorsement was made by the Legal Manager about receipt of notice and all the requisite documents, with his signature and date as 26.02.2025. His cell number is also noted on the said notice. It confirms service of notice on the responsible person of the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 Company. The service of notice on the Legal Manager of the Opposite Party No.2 Company constitutes valid service in law. The plea of non-receipt is a bald assertion without any supporting material. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 05.03.2025 or on 11.04.2025 when they were set exparte after receipt of notice on 26.02.2025. The notice issued by the counsel for the Complainant dated 25.02.2025 enclosed along with the memo filed by him on 05.03.2025 would disclose that they have informed the Opposite Party No.2 to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar on 05.03.2025 at 10.30 A.M. failing which the District 6 Commission would proceed with the case in their absence. Inspite of the same, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear before the Commission. The order setting the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 exparte after proof of service of notice and failure to file their written version within the stipulated period is a proper exercise of jurisdiction.
7. Revisional power is very limited and this Forum cannot re- appreciate the facts. Service on a responsible employee like a Legal Officer of Opposite Party No.2 Company is a valid service on the company. Once notice is served, statutory timelines consequently follow. Mere denial about non-receipt of notice is not sufficient when the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 fails to explain as to why no action was taken when their Legal Manager received the notice. Their internal miscommunication is not a valid ground to set aside the exparte order. Consumer proceedings require strict timelines. Any delay or laxity will not be condoned lightly as consumer law aims at speedy redressal. Large Corporations cannot take shelter under vague pleas after due service. The Forum can be liberal when notice was genuinely not served. But when a notice was served but ignored, the same cannot be taken lightly.
8. It is well settled that the timelines prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act are to be strictly adhered to and filing of written version beyond the prescribed period is impermissible. However, as the matter is still pending before the District Commission and considering the memo filed by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, we are inclined to afford a limited opportunity to the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 to participate in the proceedings.
9. In the result, the application is disposed of with the following conditions:
(1) The exparte order is not set aside in toto. However, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 is permitted to participate in the proceedings in a limited manner.7
(2) The Opposite Party No.2 shall not be permitted to file written version as the statutory period is already expired. (3) The Opposite Party may cross examine the Complainant‟s witnesses and address oral arguments and assist the District Commission on questions of law.
(4) They are not permitted to adduce evidence either oral or documentary.
(5) This indulgence is granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants payable within two weeks. (6) In default of payment of costs, the order shall stand automatically vacated and the matter shall proceed exparte against Opposite Party No.2.
(7) No adjournment shall be granted at the instance of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her; corrected by us in the Open Court on this the 24th day of March‟ 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ MEMBER-NJ
Date: 24.03.2026
*UC