West Bengal

Bankura

CC/52/2019

Subhas Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Limited, Nutanganj - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kumar Mukharjee

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA 

  Consumer Complaint No. 52/2019

                                                 Date of Filing:   11/11/2019                                             

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P.:  Ld. Advocate Gobinda N. Ghosal

Complainant  

Subhas Saini, S/O Late Rajendra Saini, Resident of Village Gobardhanpur, P.O. Pirraboni, P.S. – Beliatore, District Bankura, Pin - 722203.

Opposite Party 

1.  Bajaj Finance Limited, Nutanganj, Feeder Road, Bankura, P.O., P.S. &  District Bankura, Pin – 722101.

2. Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Makurgram Branch, Makurgram, P.S. Bankura, District Bankura (EXPUNGED)

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.34

Dated: 20-02-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he is S.B. A/c holder No. being 250801000002432 with O.P. No.2/Bank having taken loan from O.P. No.1/Finance Co. on monthly EMI basis through ECS of his banker/ O.P. No.2 since expunged. In course of repayment of the loan amount it was discovered that O.P.  No.2/Bank has deducted a sum of Rs.7,788/- from the aforesaid account of the Complainant at the instance of O.P. No.1 without issuance of any No Dues Certificate. The Complainant is not liable to pay this excess amount and hence this case.

Both O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 filed written version separately to contest the case. The defence version of O.P.  No.2/Bank is that they are not a necessary party to this case and accordingly on their prayer  O.P. No.2 has been expunged from the Cause Title of the case vide  Order dated: 11/05/2023. O.P. No.1 has however contested the case by submission of written version  belatedly contending therein that the Complainant took three loans from them on EMI basis but he defaulted by delayed payment of 1^st installment of EMI in cash and also violated ECS mandate on different occasions such as insufficient balance for which bouncing  charges have been  levied upon the Complainant and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. On the contrary the Complainant owes liability of Rs.12,070/- to them as mentioned in the written version.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd……p/2

Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that the loan statement account submitted by O.P. No.1 justifies the deduction of bouncing charges on different occasions as mentioned above. At the time of hearing Ld.  Advocate for the Complainant has submitted before the Commission that without issuing any Demand Notice O.P. No.1 cannot claim further amount from the Complainant. So the plea of O.P. No.1 taken in the written version cannot be  considered at this stage in absence of any Demand Notice. However the Complainant could not bring home  his entitlement of refund of Rs.7,788/- and as such question of issuing of No Dues Certificate does not arise.

With this observation the case is disposed of on contest by directing the O.P. No.1 to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the Complainant subject to clearance of outstanding dues if any.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER