Date of filing: 23/03/2021.

 Date of Order: 30/07/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 26 of  2021.

            Arupananda Padhi, aged about 27(twenty seven) years, S/o Lokanath Padhi, Occupation. Business, R/o Keshab Nagar, Ward No. 1(one), Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh(Odisha).                                                                             Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. The General Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited, At. Corporate Office, Panchshil Tech Park, 3^rd Floor, Viman Nagar, Pune. 411014.
2. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited, At. Bhagabati Complex, Bhatli Chowk, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.                        Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri M.Sahu, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Parties  :-      Sri M.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.30/07/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant to earn his livelihood has availed finance from the Opposite Parties amounting to Rs. 4,12,000/(Rupees four lakh twelve thousand)only and for the loan has deposited all relevant documents of the his shop and ROR of the  house valued more than Ten lakhs. From the aforesaid loan, the Complainant has started his shop and was paying the EMI regularly till March, 2020. Due to Covid 19 the Complainant has suffered a lot and had sustained recurring loss. The Opposite Parties calculated the installment and interest dues regularly during the Covid 19 period for which the Complainant suffered pecuniary as well as non pecuniary loss. The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice for which the Complainant filed complaint before this Commission praying that Opposite Parties be directed to compensate the Complainant with a sum of  Rs 4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifty thousand)only.

2)         The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) have jointly filed version and submitted that on 24.06.2021 a Master Assignment Agreement was signed between the Opposite Parties and Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) where the Opposite Parties sold, assigned, conveyed and transferred in favour of  ARCIL . The Opposite Parties have sent an intimation regarding the same to the Complainant on Dt.23. 07. 2021. The Opposite parties have disbursed the loan amount as per the terms and conditions laid down in the loan agreement/sanction letter, and as ARCIL is having charge of the loan account there lies no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Parties.

3)         Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the parties and following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in its service ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

Issue No.1(one)

4)         It is an admitted fact that loan was availed and after  March, 2020, due to Covid 19 the Complainant was unable to pay the EMIs regularly. The Opposite Parties have submitted that as per agreement dated 24.06.2021 all the loan account of the Complainant have been transferred to  ARCIL for recovery of the aforesaid loan. As per the agreement, the Complainant have to pay the EMIs regularly but the Complainant became a chronic defaulter in paying the EMIs  No doubt Covid 19 has a huge in put on the life of the people but as per terms and conditions, it is the duty of the Complainant to pay the EMIs,  further no documents is filed by the Complainant that the Complainant has opted for Moratorium Period. As the Complainant became a defaulter, the Opposite Parties have done their duties as per the law. There lies no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Issue No.2(two)

5) The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

     Accordingly the following order is passed.

                                                              O R D E R

6) The Complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Parties without any cost.

7)  Accordingly the Order is pronounced in the open Commission to day that is Dt. 30/07/2024 and the case is dismissed against the Opposite Parties and disposed off.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                                 ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                                                                                                     M e m b e r(w).

                       (Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)

                              P r e s i d e n t.