BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL       COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                            C.C No. 09 OF 2020

Present: Hon’ble: Miss. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik- President (I/c).

               Hon’ble:  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy-   Member.      

Smt. Rojina Begum, aged about 25 years

W/O: Sekh Salim

At/Po-Kalimandira Sahi, Peonpada

PS: Model Town PS: Phulbani

Dist: kandhamal                                        …………………………. Complainant.

                        -Versus-

1.  Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Registered Office:-

At- Bajaj Auto Limited Complex

Mumbai- Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune.

State of Maharashtra- 411035.

2. Branch Manager

Bajaj Finance Ltd.

AT- Jail Road, PO/PS- Town Phulbani.

Dist- Kandhamal.

3. Branch Manager

IDBI, Bank, Phulbani Branch

At/PO/PS: Phulbani Town.

Dist- Kandhamal.…………………………………Opp. Parties.

For the Complainant:  Advocate Sri Monoj Kumar Sahoo and Associates.

For the Opp. Party No- 1 &2 – Ex-partee

 For the OP No-3 – Advocate V.V Ramdas, Phulbani .

Date of order: 19^th March 2021.

            The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant having a SB A/C No.1495104000032489 in the bank of OP No- 3. The Complainant had purchased a SONY LED TV under the Finance from OP No.1 vide customer ID No- 116706520 on payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards the advance EMI and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.16,652/- in 18 No’s of installments each installment was of Rs 1,353/-  with effect from 04/02/2019. The due date for payment of installment was fixed on the 2^nd day of every month. Accordingly the installment amount as fixed  auto debited from the Complainant’s S.B Account to the OP No.1 directly through OP No.3 till the date 03/03/2020.  But from the month of April 2020 installments could not be paid due to insufficient fund in the account of the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, she is a daily labourer,  and due to the pandemic  Corona Virus ,since in the end of March 2020 the Govt declared  lock down and later Shut down , the complainant could not go for work and lack of income , she did not able to maintain the sufficient fund in her SB A/C . Unfortunately without any intimation or notice given by the OP No- 1 or 3 regarding the insufficient fund in the account ,  on dated 16/10/2020 the OP No.3 arbitrarily deducted the amounts showing eight no’s of transaction. On asked about the deduction the OP No-3 remained silent.  Thereafter the complainant went to the OP No- 2 for obtain the loan transaction against mentioned loan and found from the statement from 08/03/2019 to 27/10/2020 the loan installments have been paid ,  further ascertained some doubtful entries mentioned in the statements. On several approach to the OP No- 2 & 3 for the entries, but both the OPs did not co-operate the complainant, result of which the present complaint filed against the OPs with a prayer to issue direction to the OPs to refund the excess deducted amount by waive out the charges since April 2020. Apart from it is also directed the Opposite parties to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation.  Accordingly the case of the complainant admitted and issue notice.  On receipt the notice, the OP No- 3 appeared and file written version, on the other hand the OP No-1 & 2 did not appear, hence declared set-expartee on dated 30/12/2020.

                         From the version of the OP No-3 it is found that installments deduction started from 02/04/019 till 02/03/2020 and further the OP No- 3 stated no deduction took place on 26/10/2020 towards the installments rather there was twenty-one transactions made towards the recovery of ECS returned charges and denied the allegation of deficiency in service with a ground that the account are maintained automatically and deduction is the online system of the Bank.  In the version the OP No- 3 justified the deduction made against the SB A/C of the complainant, that the complainant did not keep sufficient balance in her Account in order to honour the installments. For which the OP No-3 charged the E.C.S return charges of Rs 500/- along with applicable GST, further the OP No- 3 stated that there was an agreement in between both the parties i.e. Bajaj Finance Limited and the Complainant , so OP No- 3 has no role in the transactions .

            On perusal the petition, written version, evidence affidavit and supported documents from both sides, we found the Complainant has a savings Bank account bearing No-1495104000032489, from the Bank statements it reveals that on dated 26/10/2020 there were eight No’s of deduction took place against the complainant SB A/C by the OP No- 3 without any intimation or notice to the complainant prior to levied the E.C.S charge. Hence in our considered view that the OP No- 3 has committed deficiency in service on his part and we are taking liberal view in favour of the complainant that the period from April 2020 to onwards was under a pandemic situation and the complainant became workless, similarly in sufficient fund in the Account was not intentionally but due to the unavoidable circumstances, even though the above circumstances the installments have been paid by the complainant. Hence order.

O  R D E R

            The Complainant case is allowed against the OP No- 3 and dismissed against the OP No- 1 & 2 , therefore the OP No- 3 is hereby directed to refund the charges from April 2020 onwards. Apart from the OP No- 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards litigation cost and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant within 45 days of the date of this order , failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12% interest P.A  till the date of payment.  Accordingly the C.C disposed off.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 19^th  day of March 2021.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties.

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT.