DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 352  of  2022

 

Sri Subrata Roy,

S/O- Lt. Subal Roy,

College Road Extension 

behind Anandamarg School, 

Sibnagar, Agartala- 799004.   …..........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Bajaj Finance Ltd,

 

2. Branch Manager,

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : Sri Dulal Saha,

 

For the Opposite party : Sri Amritlal Saha,

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sri Subrata Roy here-in-after called the complainant has filed this complaint alleging inter alia that in the month of October, 2018 being approached by the O.P. No.2, the petitioner took a loan of Rs.91,193/- for running his shop for earning his livelihood. The loan amount was deposited in the joint account of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Mira Roy with IDBI Bank, Agartala Branch. The initial installment was Rs.3364/-.

1.1 During the Covid-19 Pandemic period the complainant could not pay the installment although he was pressurized by the O.P. No.2. However, being approached the repayment of the loan was reconstructed by reducing the installment amount to Rs.1867/-. But in the meantime the bank account of the complainant become inoperative. Hence, the complainant used to pay the monthly installment to the representative of O.P. No.2. But the complainant was never issued any money receipt although occasionally the O.P. used to send SMS to the complainant acknowledging receipt of such installment.

1.2 The complainant asked the representative of the O.P. No.2 to issue statement of account and ultimately the complainant submitted an application to O.P. No.2 for issuing a statement of account and proposing settlement of loan account by lumpsum payment of Rs.50,000/-. However, this letter dated 02.08.2021 was not answered by the O.P. No.2. At this juncture the complainant contacted his advocate who issued a demand notice dated 07.05.2022 requesting the respondent No.2 to furnish a statement of loan account of the complainant but the said notice was not honoured by the O.P. No.2. Hence, this complaint seeking the following reliefs:-

 

2. The O.Ps in written objection pleaded inter alia that the relation between the complainant and the O.P. is that a debtor and Creditor, as such not being a Consumer, the complaint is not maintainable. 

 

2.1 The O.Ps cited a number of judgments wherein it was held that such type of complaint is not maintainable. 

2.2 It is further pleaded that the complainant availed the loan for a period of 38 months commencing from 02.11.2018  and ending on 02.12.2022. Out of the total loan amount of Rs.99,000/- an amount of Rs.91,193/- was disbursed and the rest amount was deducted towards the incidental and processing fees. The complainant initially paid all EMIs but from EMI No.9 onwards the complainant started defaulting and  such EMIs were paid in cash not on the date of payment but after the due date and an amount of Rs.600/- was charged as bouncing charges as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per guidelines of RBI the complainant was granted Suo moto Morat in the month of April, 2020 but for the months of May to July, 2020 the complainant had not approached the O.P. for Morat. In the month of July, 2020 the complainant had decided to foreclose the said loan account by carrying forward the principal outstanding amount and giving the consent to rebook the said loan to a Flexi Loan by sharing  the details over the Bitly Link which was received by the complainant in his registered mobile number. Hence, the monthly EMI of Rs.1867/- was fixed to be deducted for 12 months only for the interest of the loan amount and after completion of 12 months the EMI charge increased with the principal loan amount which then increased to Rs.3986/-. The O.P. has annexed a detail chart in support of their pleading. 

 

3. Evidences submitted by both sides with documents.

 

4. Hearing argument the following point is taken up for discussion:-

 

5. The complainant in relief No.1 has prayed to furnish an account of his loan amount; the 2nd relief claimed by the complainant is for giving direction to the O.Ps to settle the loan account on receiving an amount as may be settle by this commission; 3rdly for compensation for deficiency in service; 4thly compensation for business loss of the complainant and lastly for any other order.

5.1 The O.Ps in their written objection have depicted a detail picture of transaction of the loan and payment of EMI by the complainant and also reconstructing of EMI. 

5.2 We profitably refer the decision of Hon'ble State Commission of Cuttack in Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2010 in Sushanta Kumar Acharya Vs. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. wherein and whereunder it was decided by the Hon'ble State Commission that the dispute is clearly an accounts dispute which can not be decided by the Consumer Commission.

 

5.3 In the case at hand considering the pleading of both the parties and also considering the fact that the complainant stopped payment of EMI, we can not decide the amount up to date payable by the complainant to the O.P. and we do not find any merit of the pleading of the complainant that this Commission may give any direction to the O.P. to settle the loan account on payment  of a lumpsum amount. Therefore, we find merit in the case advanced by the O.P. and it is for the complainant to approach the O.P. for settlement of the loan account on payment of a lumpsum amount if O.P. agrees to such proposal and also the complainant may get a copy of the statement of account up to date from the O.P. As such, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant to be entertained by this Consumer Commission.

6. The point is decided accordingly.

 

7. In the result the case of the complainant is dismissed, as the O.P. can’t be held liable for any sort of deficiency in service. The parties are to bear their own cost. 

8. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to both the parties.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.