ORDER

07.10.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complaint has been filed by complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- for compensation against mental agony and harassment etc on account of illegally calling the complainant for recovery of loan account.
3. It is stated that the complainant has been a loyal customer of the OP No. 1 for last 5-6 years and has availed six personal loans from the OP No.1 and has been paying without failing the EMI on time i.e. on 2^nd and 7^th of every month.
4. That on 02.05.2024 one EMI out of total six EMIs was missed due to some unforeseen reasons.
5. That from 06.05.2024 onwards the complainant has been inundated with an overwhelming number of phone calls from various numbers claiming to represent CRED/IDFC Bank. He has received almost 15-20 calls per day and the caller simply said that they were calling on behalf of the CRED/IDFC Bank.  
6. It is stated that whenever the complainant asked them about their company name or any sort of identity they simply refused to provide the same, it is stated that those calls have not only been persistent but also aggressive and intimidating in nature.
7. It is stated that the thereafter the complainant repeatedly received numerous calls for recovery of missed EMI from several unknown numbers on behalf of OPs.  
8. It is therefore the complainant is before us seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- against compensation against mental agony and harassment etc on account of illegally calling the complainant for recovery of loan account.
9. We have heard complainant in person and perused the record available with us.
10. A preliminary issue arises in the present complaint whether there is any consumer dispute involved in the present complaint.   
11. The gist of the present case is that complainant has been receiving unsolicited calls / recovery calls disturbing the mental peace of the complainant from OP admittedly for recovery of missed EMI of a loan obtained by complainant from OP. We are to decide at this stage prima facie whether unsolicited calls disturbing and annoying the customer of a financial institution is a case of consumer dispute.
12. Admittedly there is no complaint of deficiency in service by complainant in obtaining the loan and disbursement of same to complainant by OPs. Dispute arose only with respect to manner of calling in which OP demanded amount of missed EMI which allegedly caused mental agony and harassment to complainant.
13.  It is pertinent to discuss the definition of service as defined u/s 2(42) of C.P. Act, 2019.

"service" means "service of any description which is made available to potential users" and includes facilities related to banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electricity, telecom, boarding, lodging, housing construction, entertainment, news dissemination, but does not include any service provided free of charge or under a contract of personal service; essentially encompassing any service offered to consumers for a consideration, excluding personal services provided without payment.

14. On the basis of above statutory position, observation and discussions we are of considered opinion that there is no consumer dispute in the present case. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for admitting the present complaint. Complainant is at liberty to seek remedy at appropriate authority. 

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 07.10.2024.

 (SANJAY KUMAR)             (NIPUR CHANDNA)             (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                       MEMBER                           MEMBER