Orissa

Cuttak

CC/14/2021

Pitambar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

03 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.14/2021

            Pitambar Patra,

           S/O:Late Musi Patra,

           Resident of At:Rajendra Nagar,P.S:Madhupatna,

           Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin -753010.                                  ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch Office,2ndFloor,

Sreema Construction, Below Akash Institute,

Naya Chowk,Madhupatna,

                 Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753010,Odisha

 

2.       Managing Director,Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Regd. Office:Mumbai-Pune Road,Akurdi,

                 Pune-411035,Maharastra,India

 

3.      Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Corporate Office,4^th Floor,

Off Pune-AhmednagarRoad,Maharastra,

India.                                                                         ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    29.01.2021

Date of Order:  03.05.2023

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  :                Mr. R.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                    

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Godrej Refrigerator from M/s. Godrej Company depo at Bhubaneswar on 31.8.19 after obtaining financial assistance from the O.P company.  As per the loan agreement, the O.P Finance Company had agreed to finance a loan amount of Rs.13,700/- with a margin down payment of Rs.4569/-.  The incurred loan amount was to be repaid by the complainant in six number of E.M.Is @ Rs.1523/-.  The loan was disbursed on 31.8.19 and the first E.M.I date was 5.10.19 whereas the last E.M.I was due on 5.3.20.  After incurring the said loan, the complainant had paid the E.M.I dues in the months of October, November& December,2019 and January of 2020 regularly.  The complainant had also paid the E.M.Is for February and March,2020 on 22.1.2020 which was well before the due date of the said two E.M.Is.  The O.Ps while executing the loan agreement had demanded post- dated cheques and the complainant had also issued in their favour one post-dated cheque of S.B.I,Cuttack City Branch which was recoverable in ECS mode.  After making the full payment of the loan, the complainant demanded for No Due Certificate from the O.P company but, to his dismay, he was informed by the O.P company that three number of cheques as issued by him were dishonoured by his banker when presented on 11.11.19,9.12.19 and 10.1.20.  It is for the said reason a penalty was imposed @ Rs.450/- on each of those three cheques amounting to Rs.1350/- and the said amount was demanded by the O.P company from the complainant.  On enquiry, the complainant could know that there was sufficient balance in his account on the said dates when the cheques were bounced on those three occasions. The complainant had filed xerox copy of the S.B.Account passbook in order to show that he had sufficient funds on those dates.  The complainant could also know that no such penalty was levied upon his account by his banker on the said dates as alleged by the O.P company.  The complainant had requested for the cheque bouncing memo from the O.P company in order to impound the banker for such payment.  When the matter could not be resolved, the complainant had to approach this Commission seeking redressal with a prayer to issue direction to the O.Ps not to demand the cheque bouncing charges as made by them illegally and also to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further has prayed for the cost of his litigation.

          The complainant alongwith his complaint petition ahs filed copies of several documents in order to establish his case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  The O.Ps through their written version have stated that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  The O.Ps have urged through their written version that the cheque bouncing charges were deducted by the banker of the complainant.  They allege that the complainant had failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account for which the cheques were dishonoured and bouncing charges were levied.  In their written version, the O.Ps have relied upon certain decisions wherein it was observed that the finance company does not render any service to the debtor/creditor for which the consumer complaint as made in the said cases were rejected.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.Ps that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be rejected. 

The O.Ps have also annexed copies of several alongwith their written version documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the contents of the complaint petition and the averments of the written version together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.           Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit also in this case and the same when perused it is noticed that it is reiteration of the gist of the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition.

 

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration.

On perusal of the annexures as filed by the complainant and while scanning the alleged three dates, it is noticed that though there was a deduction of Rs.450/- on each of the said three dates, the complainant had sufficient funds in his account during those three dates.  Thus, it is not understood under what circumstances the cheques when produced had bounced being not paid though there was sufficient funds available during such dates in the account of the complainant.  The O.Ps have not procured any statement/reason to that effect from the banker.  Moreso, the O.Ps have not duly intimated the complainant about the cheques bouncing but after filing of the case and during pendency of it, the O.Ps had issued “No Due Certificate” in favour of the complainant on 7.9.21 as it appears from Annexure-B as attached to their written version which is copy of the said “No Due Certificate” the same was issued in favour of the complainant.  On scrutiny of Annexure-A as filed by the O.Ps, which is a copy of the statement of account of the complainant as maintained by the O.Ps, it is noticed that the O.Ps had waived of the cheque bouncing amounts of the complainant on 7.9.21 prior to issuance of “No Due Certificate” in favour of the complainant.  When the cheque bouncing amounts were deducted by the banker inspite of the complainant having sufficient funds, it cannot be said here in this case that there was any fault from the side of the complainant.  Thus, the O.Ps are deficient in their service by not providing the ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant when demanded by him, nor had they intimated the complainant promptly when the cheques were bounced.  Accordingly, this Commission finds deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case which also indicates that  they have  practised unfair trade by their act.  This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him as because the O.Ps had caused mental agony to him undoubtedly. Hence, it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed not to demand the cheque bouncing amounts to the tune of Rs.1350/- from the complainant.  The O.Ps are further directed to deliver the ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant forthwith and to compensate the complainant by paying him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment as caused to him.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 3^rd  day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

 

                                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                 President

         

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                          Member