Orissa

Cuttak

CC/82/2020

Mrs. Jayashree Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserve Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Das

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.82/2020

 

Mrs. Jayashree Das,

W/O:Mr.Arun Kumar Das,

At:Tarini Vihar,42 Mouza,P.O:Jhinkiriyia,

DistKCuttack-753112.                                          ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.       Corporate-Bajaj Finserv Ltd.,

Regd.Office,BFL Ltd.,

Mumbai-Pune Road,

Akurdi-411035,Maharastra,India.

 

2.         The Manager,

Bajaj Finserv Ltd.,At:Akash Building,

Above Icici-pru-life Ltd.,

P.O:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack-10,

III.ClassicMobile,Deulasahi(Infront of Upasana Mandap),

P.O:Deulasahi,Cuttack.                             ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                           Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     15.10.2020

Date of Order:    01.12.2022

 

For the complainants:          Mr.A.K.Das,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.Ps                :          None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                        

               Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased one Samsung Galaxy A30s Android mobilephone from O.P no.2 for a price of Rs.16,999/- on 22.10.19 and had paid down payment of Rs.5232/- with E.M.I @ Rs.1134/-.  Thus, the total consideration amount was to be paid back in 11 number of instalments.  The complainant had executed agreement to that effect vide loan account no.LANC1DPFQ206886.  On 11.2.2020 the O.Ps had sent one collection agent in order to collect the E.M.I dues from the complainant and the complainant had given the said agent of O.Ps two number of post-dated cheques and thereafter had given a cash of Rs.1134/- on 27.2.2020 but the O.Ps are threatening the complainant by making telephonic calls.  The O.Ps had deducted moratorium charges of Rs.1250/- instead of the fixed EMI of Rs.1134/-.  They have also heavily imposed surcharge of Rs.992/-.  It is for this the complainant had sent pleader’s notice to the O.Ps and ultimately had to seek resort before this Commission praying therein for refund of Rs.580/- which the O.Ps had excessively deducted alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- towards interest thereon.  The complainant has further claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of her wages and further another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and torture and further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of her legal expenses.

               In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed copies of certain documents including purchase receipt and agreement with the O.Ps.

2.            Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.19.1.2021.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

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

 

 

Issue No.ii.

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

Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a one Samsung Galaxy A30s Android mobile phone from O.P no.2 for a price of Rs.16,999/- on 22.10.19 and had paid down payment of Rs.5232/- with E.M.I @ Rs.1134/-.  The complainant had to repay the loan amount in 11 number of E.M.Is. The complainant had executed agreement to that effect vide loan account no.LANC1DPFQ206886.  On 11.2.2020 the O.Ps had collected two number of E.M.I dues and two number of post-dated chequesfrom the complainant through their collection agent.the complainant had also given cash of Rs.1134/- to the collection agent of O.Ps on 27.2.2020.  The O.Ps had also deducted moratorium charges of Rs.1250/- instead of the fixed EMI of Rs.1134/-.  They had also heavily imposed surcharge of Rs.992/- and were threatening the complainant by making telephonic calls.  When the complainant had paid all the E.M.Is regularly, the moratorium charges as per the agreement, imposing heavy surcharge of Rs.992/- on the complainant without her fault  clearly signifies about the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            Points no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant can said to be maintainable and complainant is thus entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to return the complainant the excessive deducted amount of Rs.580/- forthwith.  The O.ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant alongwith a cost of Rs.30,000/- towards her litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of   December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member