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.50 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CC.NO.608 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.Pramerica Life Insurance Limited (Erstwhile DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Limited) Registered office 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana (State), Pin: 122 002, Represented by its Managing Director.
....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:M/s.Sanjeev Kulkarni 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 16.01.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in CC.No.608/2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 and the Respondent/Complainant present in person.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the docket order dated 16.01.2025 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.608/2024. 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.608/2024 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.608/2024 was posted to 19.05.2025. During the said verification, he came to know about the exparte order passed on 16.01.2025. The Petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings and therefore was unable to appear before the District Commission during the initial 3 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 16.01.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in CC.No.608/2024.
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 Parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.19,76,896/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.03.2023 till the date of realization of the loan account of the deceased and Complainant No.3 bearing No.BANEE00722751; to return all the original title deeds, security documents and papers pertaining to the loan account by closing the loan to the extent of the deceased; to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each to each of the Complainants towards the mental agony, hardship caused because of the indifferent attitude of the Opposite Parties and indulging in unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 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 4 Rs.40,283/- as premium for the said policy. A certificate of insurance was also given under the name and style of Avanse Protect with effect from 27.02.2023 to 26.02.2033 for a period of ten years to the sum assured amount of Rs.27,39,817/-. The Complainants were under the bonafide impression that both borrowers were covered under the said certificate of insurance, as the major receiver of the loan was Mr.Vamshi Reddaiah, he must be covered under the insurance policy, as the policy would cover a sum of Rs.27,39,817/- as represented by the Opposite Parties. 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.608/2024 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
(c) She further submitted that after filing CC.No.608/2024, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Notices were served on both the Opposite Parties on 25.11.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively. A counsel filed vakalat for Opposite Party No.1, but no one appeared for Opposite Party No.2. The matter was posted for the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 16.01.2025. As the Opposite Party No.2 failed to make his appearance and file written version within the stipulated period of 45 days from 26.11.2024, the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 was set exparte on 16.01.2025. There was no irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the Commission below in setting the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 exparte on 16.01.2025 5 and to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.
5. 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:
A perusal of the record would disclose that though the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 contended that they had not received the notice, failed to file any proof to show the non-receipt of notice. As the docket order of the District Commission dated 13.12.2024 would disclose the service of notice on the Opposite Party No.2 on 26.11.2024 and the postal track report enclosed to the case record would disclose that notice was served upon the Opposite Party No.2 addressed on 26.11.2024, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order of the District Commission in setting the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 exparte. The plea of non-receipt of notice by the Revision Petitioner is only a bald assertion without any supporting material. The contention of non-receipt of notice is therefore not convincing and does not inspire confidence. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 as to why, despite such service no steps were taken to appear before the District Commission.
7. 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. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 16.01.2025. The revisional jurisdiction being limited and there being no jurisdictional error or material irregularity, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. However, as the matter is still pending before the District Commission and considering the memo filed by the learned 6 counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeking permission to allow the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 to participate in the proceedings in a limited manner, we deem it fit to afford a limited opportunity to the Opposite Party without causing prejudice to the Complainant or defeating the object of expeditious disposal.
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. (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