BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 347/2022 Filed on 01/09/2022

ORDER DATED: 06/09/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party to appear before this Commission on 12/10/2022.  The said notice was accepted by the opposite party on 09/09/2022.  This complaint is filed by a Registered Consumer organization on behalf of the Consumer complainant who is a member of that organization.  The case of the complainant in short is that on 25/06/2022 one of the employee of the opposite party telephoned the complainant and offered a personnel loan of Rs.2,25,000/- as the complainant is eligible up to that amount.  She explained the various terms and conditions of the loan facilities.  Further she assured that the loan is interest free and a 10% of the loan amount shall be deducted from the loan amount as their processing fee.  The complainant had taken Bike loan and laptop loan from the opposite party on earlier occasions and regularly paid back the loan without any default.  The opposite party repeatedly convinced the complainant that the equally month installment will be Rs.7,400/- and the period of loan facility shall be 30 months.  On the very same day another representative of the opposite party telephoned the complainant and reaffirmed the terms and conditions in which the equal monthly installment was Rs.9,083/-for 36 months and as the same was not acceptable to the complainant, he rejected the loan offer.  Subsequently the representative of the opposite party who contacted the complainant earlier, had called again and affirmed her words and prompted the complainant to proceed with the loan transactions.  Finally the complainant accepted the loan and told the opposite party to proceed with it.  The opposite parties did not required any further documents as all those documents required for a loan are already with the opposite party as a part of the previous loan transaction with them by the complainant.  Subsequently the opposite party credited Rs.2,07,722/- on 25/06/2022 in the SB account of the complainant with Canara Bank Thirumala Branch.  The opposite party deducted Rs. 17,278/- as their processing charges.  The complainant accepted the loan and he has withdrawn the loan amount from his account.  On 30/07/2022 the complainant received a SMS message from the opposite party stating that the EMI of Rs.9,083/- is due on 02/08/2022.  As the EMI shown in that message was in excess of the agreed EMI, the complainant contacted the opposite party.  According to the complainant the opposite party has violated from their assurance made to the complainant regarding EMI.  The complainant submits that by offering attractive terms and conditions at the initial stage and subsequently demanding excess amount than the fixed EMI informed at the time of offering loan, is an act from the side of the opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant submits that he has got an overdraft facility with Canara Bank, Thirumala branch for his business purposes and as the related SB account is running short of amount, it has badly affected the cibil score of the complainant.  The complainant further submits that he would not have accepted the loan offer, if the opposite party disclosed the real terms and conditions for the loan transactions.  According to the complainant the opposite party purposefully suppressed the actual EMI amount and prompted the complainant to accept the loan.  The complainant further submits that the act of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. 

3. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 series from the side of the complainant.  as the opposite party was declared ex parte there is no affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite party. 

4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

5. Heard. Perused affidavit, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 series were produced and marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the account statement of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the CD containing in the phone conversation between the complainant and the representative of the opposite party.  Ext.A3 series are the copy of the screen shot of the messages between the complainant and the opposite party.  There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1and by marking Ext.A1 to A3 series documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. It is also come in evidence that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of remittance/realization.           

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 06^th day of September,  2024.

C.C. No. 347/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS: