Orissa

Cuttak

CC/121/2022

Tapan Panigrahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Axis Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

self

10 May 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.121/2022

 

         

Mr. Tapan Panigrahi,

S/O: Gangadhar Panigrahi,

Rajabagicha,Balasore,

Presently staying at Station Bazar,Cuttack.                     ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.        The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank Ltd.,

R.C.Behera Market Complex Salandi,

Bypass Bhadrak,Odisha,Pin-756100.

 

2.       The Managing Director,

Axis Bank Ltd.,Corporate Office,

Axis House,7^th Floor,C-2,

Wadia International Centre,

Worli,Mumbai,Pin-400025.                         ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.06.2022

Date of Order:  10.05.2023

 

For the complainant:               Self.

For the O.Ps              :                Mr. P.K.Rout,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 Royal Enfield motorcycle after obtaining finance from the Axis Bank of Bhadrak.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3700/- to the O.Ps which is 2.5% of the loan which was towards the processing fee of the loan.  He was provided the loan on 7.1.2022 vide his application ID No.15869955.  The E.M.I @ Rs.7202/- was to be deducted towards the loan as obtained by the complainant.  The O.P no.1 had sent a message six to seven days earlier to the date of due of the E.M.I  in the month of February intimating the complainant that a sum of Rs.11,234/- is to be deducted towards his first E.M.I but when the complainant made correspondences with them, they had sent another message that the said E.M.I  was to be of Rs.7489/- which was deducted from the loan A/c. No.TWR002406981840of the complainant on 10.2.2022.  Subsequently O.P no.1had intimated the complainant that a new rule has been adopted with effect from 1.1.2022, which according to the complainant, is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.  By virtue of the said new policy, the complainant would sustain financial loss @ Rs.287/- and in a total he would sustain a loss of Rs.6888/- in 24 months.  When the complainant pointed out the same to the O.Ps, they admitted the same and assured him to pay compensation @ Rs.200/- for the 24 months.  But ultimately when the dispute could not be resolved inspite of the complainant running from pillar to post, he had approached this Commission with a prayer to direct the O.Ps in order to pay him a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards his litigation expenses, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards violation of his consumer rights and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony as caused to him together with other compensation.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has attached copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  Ofcourse they admit that the complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from them vide Loan Account No.No.TWR002406981840 on 18.1.2022 in order to purchase a Royal Enfield Motorcycle and he was supposed to pay E.M.I @ Rs.7489/- for 24 months effective from 5.2.2022 till 5.1.2024.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant was not eligible for the loan as applied because of his low income.  They also admit about the rectification of the E.M.I subsequently which was made to Rs.7489/-.    The complainant instead of repaying the loan as incurred by him has filed this case in order to escape from the liability of repaying the said loan for which the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed.

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 any unfair trade ?

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

Issue no.ii.

          After going through the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition and also perusing the contents of the written version of both the O.Ps, it is noticed that the complainant had incurred a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the O.Ps on 18.1.2022 for purchasing a Royal Enfield Motorcycle which is not in dispute.  As per the complainant, he was to repay the said loan amount with E.M.I of Rs.7202/- but subsequently he was demanded an amount of Rs.11,234/- towards his first E.M.I which was later rectified by the O.Ps to be of Rs.7489/- on 10.2.2022.  This demand of Rs.11,234/- is admitted by the O.Ps to be erroneous which was subsequently rectified by them.  On perusal of the Annexures as filed by the complainant, it is noticed that the Annexure-1 is the copy of the loan sanction letter in favour of the complainant Tapan Panigrahi wherein the E.M.I was reflected to be of Rs.7202/- for a period 24 months.  As per Anenxure-4, which is the copy of the letter of the Authorised Officer of the O.Ps dt.13.5.22; it reflects that the E.M.I was fixed to be of Rs.7489/-.  As per Annexure-5, the motorcycle was purchased by the complainant on 10.1.2022 and the money was received from the complainant by the dealer of the said Motorcycle Company was on 7.1.2022.  Neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have filed the copies of the proposal form and the loan agreement deed so as to apprise the terms and conditions and effective date of the said loan as disbursed in favour of the complainant.  As it appears from the contention of the O.Ps, the loan agreement was executed in between the complainant and themselves subsequently.  According to law, there should be a valid offer and a valid acceptance and after it, the loan agreement was to be executed following the disbursement of the loan amount.  In this case as it appears no such legal steps were deemed to have been followed.  The same indicates that the O.Ps are at fault by not following the proper procedures while disbursing the loan to the complainant.  The subsequent modification of the E.M.I as made by the O.Ps after disbursement of the loan deviates from and is rather a violation to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Thus, by demanding higher rate of E.M.I subsequently from the complainant, the O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service who can also be said to have practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

 

 

Issues no.i & iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him in this case.  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 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards cost of his litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

 

                                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                 President

         

 

                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                          Member