Orissa

Cuttak

CC/38/2022

Debasmita Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Bajaj Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 Sep 2023

ORDER

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

C.C No.38/2022

 

          Debasmita Mohanty,

           W/o: Sanat Kumar Das,

           At:Nuapada,P.O:Nayabazar,

           P.S:Madhupatna,Town/Dist:Cuttack.               ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Branch Manager,

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,Link Road,

Sreema Construction,Below Akash Institute Building,

                  2^nd floor,Nayachowk,

​                   P.O/P.S-Madhupatana,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

                   Pin-753010.

 

2.        Branch Manager,

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,1^st Floor,LI Plaza,

Plot No.504, Infront of Indian Petrol Pump,

Madhusudan Nagar,Bhuaneswar,

                   Odisha,PIN-751012.

     

3.        Branch Manager,S.B.I

                          Kalyani Nagar Branch,P.S:Madhupatna,

                          Town/Dist:Cuttack,PIN-753013.                        ....Opp. Parties.                                   

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    03.03.2022

Date of Order:  08.09.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1  & 2:            Mr. R.C.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.3:                               None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                           

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had obtained a health insurance of Mediclaim policy bearing No. No.GHI-BF-RFB-IN5655236 from Aditya Birla Insurance and had paid monthly premium of Rs.1141/- where the sum assured was of Rs.5,00,000/-.  It was a 10-month premium policy which was ending on 29.3.2021.  The complainant had not renewed the said policy nor had she taken any loan against it.  In the month of October,2021 when the complainant went to up-date her Passbook at S.B.I,Kalyaninagar Branch,Cuttack corresponding to her Savings Bank A/c. No. 000000339335351, she could know that since from the date 2.5.21 an amount of Rs.1130/- is being regularly deducted for each month by the O.Ps no1 & 2 towards health insurance policy.  The complainant immediately had rung up to O.Ps no.1 & 2 asking them to refund the amount that which has been debited from her account since because she has no knowledge about such renewal of the said policy but her approach in that aspect was not taken into account by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 who rather had deducted E.M.I premium on 2.11.2021 towards the month of November,21 towards the said health insurance.  The complainant thereafter had to make her account nil but since the E.M.I could not be deducted for the months of December,21 and January,22, a sum of Rs.295/- has been deducted on each of the said two months from the account of the complainant.  By going to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant could know that the insurance agent  Lopamudra Rout had renewed her health insurance by manipulating behind the back of the complainant and without any instruction or consent of the complainant.  The renewed health insurance policy bearing No.GHI-BF-RFB-IN5655236 with date of issue was 29.3.2021 and the policy status of it is still showing as pending.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 had taken a sum of Rs.9033/- towards the regular E.M.I of the said Health Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant and also has deducted a sum of Rs.590/- from the account of the complainant towards dishonour charges.  Thus, the complainant had sustained a loss of Rs.9623/- in total for which she accuses the O.Ps no.1 & 2 who according to her opinion were deficient in their service.  Having no other way out, the complainant has filed this case seeking a direction to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 to reverse the amount of Rs.9623/- in her favour which they had illegally deducted from her S.B. Account without taking her consent.  The complainant has further prayed for a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 towards compensation and her litigation expenses and has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          The complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith her complaint petition in order to prove her case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.3 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.30.9.2022. 

          However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be rejected with cost since because the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and had rather suppressed the real facts.  They admit that the complainant had preferred to obtain Health Insurance Policy from Aditya Birla Health Insurance which has not been made a party here in this case by the complainant.  Thus, according to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the case of the complainant is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Challenging the jurisdiction of this Commission, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have cited decisions of the Hon’ble State Court, Cuttack in Consumer complaint No.81/2008 which was decided on 30.11.2009(Deepak Kumar Sahoo Vrs. Branch In-charge, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,Bhubaneswar,(ii),Sheela Kumari Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company & others,2007 NCJ 570, (iii) Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Court in the case of Sreeja Finance Vs. Saumini & Another, 2008(1) CPR 128, (iv) Hon’ble National Court in Manager,St. Ary’s Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. Vs. N.A.Jose, III 1995 CPJ 58(NC), V. Ram Deshlahara Vs. Magma Lesing Ltd., III(2006) CPJ(NC), wherein it was observed that the financier does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. & C.C. No.43/2010. Hon’ble State Court,Cuttack in Susanta Kumar Acharya Vrs. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. Thus, according to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant is not a consumer here in this case.  Though the O.Ps no.1 & 2 admit about the health insurance of the complainant which had for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and was ending on dated 6.4.2022, the same was availed against Loan A/c. No.4C1IDGGW166921 for Rs.11,293/- dated 29.3.2021 with monthly EMI @ Rs.1130/-.   The EMIs were deducted towards the loan account of the complainant @ Rs.1130/- for 7 months but the complainant defaulted in paying the EMIs no.8^th,9^th & 10^th as because there was no sufficient funds in her account and it is for the said reason the bouncing charge @ Rs.150/- was levied which was as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant had never approached the O.Ps and with an oblique motive has filed this case only.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 to dismiss the case of the complainant which is devoid of any merit.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have filed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, 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?

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

Issue no.II.

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

After perusing the averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition, the contents of the written version of  O.Ps no.1 & 2, written notes of submission from either sides and also after perusing the copies of several documents as available in the case record, being submitted from either sides, it is noticed that as per the copies of   documents submitted by the O.Ps no.1 & 2, infact the complainant had availed a loan which she had repaid for seven consecutive terms but had defaulted for the 8^th,9^th & 10^th monthly terms.  When she defaulted in making payment of the regular E.M.Is towards the loan as agreed upon, the dishonour charges were levied upon her and deducted from her S.B.Account.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and notices that infact the complainant had approached with an oblique motive in order to escape from the liability as saddled upon her for repaying the loan as incurred by her.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

 

 

Issue no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case being not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 & exparte against O.P no.3 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 8^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. 

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                         President

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member