Orissa

Cuttak

CC/139/2021

M/s Cool & Cool - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhani Loans & Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P R Behera & associates

05 Apr 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                      C.C. No.139/2021

            M/s. Cool and Cool represented through

 its Prop. Sayed Hamid Ali,S/O:Sayed Hatim Ali,

At:C/O:Holding No.636,W-19,Darga Bazar

P.O:Buxi Bazar,Near Nabjyoti Tutorial,

Dist:Cuttack,State:Odisha.                                                         ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Authorized Officer,

Dhani  Loans and Services Ltd.,(earlier known as Indiabulls Consumer Finance Ltd. & IVL Finance limited),At:M-62 & 63,First Floor,Connaught Place,New Delhi-110001.

 

2.        Zonal Head Manager,Dhani Loans and Services Ltd.,

Dhani  Loans and Services Ltd.,(earlier known as Indiabulls Consumer Finance Ltd. & IVL Finance limited),At:Corporate Office,Plot No.422-B,Udyog Vihar,Phase-IV,Gurugram-122016,State:Haryana.

 

3.        Branch Manager,

Dhani  Loans and Services Ltd.,(earlier known as Indiabulls Consumer Finance Ltd. &     IVL Finance limited),At:2^nd Floor,Trishna Tower,Chandi Chhak,Cuttack-753008.                            ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debashis Nayak,President.

                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing  :  01.09.2021

Date of Order: 05.04.2022

 

For the complainant: Sri Pramod Ranjan Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps:                 Sri Satya Prem Mohanty,Advocate & Associates.

Sri Debashis Nayak,President.

                The case record is put up today for hearing.  Learned counsels for either sides are present.  Heard from both  sides.

Perused the case record.  It is noticed that the complainant, as per the averments made at page-5 of this complaint petition, has availed a business loan by virtue of an agreement dt.24.12.2019 to the tune of Rs.4,06,451/- with the condition to repay the said amount in 24 E.M.Is @ Rs.21,693/- commencing from 5.2.2020 till 5.1.2022 but due to the pandemic situation, the complainant suffered the set back offering to non-payment of the debts.  It is further alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps have not cooperated with him in providing the correct statement of repayment and the outstanding arrear dues.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps for the same and had made representations accordingly dt.15.6.20,22.8.20 and 8.2.2021.  Ultimately the O.P.1 had sent a letter vide letter no.REF/20/RBC-Jan/L-26/2021 dt.8.2.2021  to the complainant which the complainant received on 17.2.2021 wherein it was mentioned about the invocation of arbitration and appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute among themselves.  The complainant has further urged that the O.Ps had appointed sole Arbitrator Mr. Sanjay Agarwal without considering his representations or even without his consent.  The complainant was instructed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the O.Ps towards repayment.

As such, the complainant by filing this case has prayed to waive out the penalty imposed against him along with interests and also to direct the O.Ps to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, mental agony and harassment along with the cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation fee.

2.  The O.Ps have contested this case and filed their version wherein they have admitted that the complainant incurring loan of Rs.40,645/- and about 24 E.M.Is agreed to be paid @ Rs.4075/- and the E.M.Is  to be paid from 5.2.2020 till 5.5.2022.  In their version the O.Ps have stated that the complainant delayed the payments and became a defaulter in repaying the E.M.Is intentionally for which they had consultation with the complainant for repaying the outstanding arrear.  They have also mentioned that since because there is an arbitration proceeding sub-judice, the order passed by this Commission dt.7.9.2021 is bad in the eye of law.  Accordingly, the O.Ps have prayed to dismiss the complaint with the exemplary cost.

     Keeping averments of the complaint petition as well as the version as filed by the O.Ps, it is noticed that the following issues are to be settled here in this case.

1. If the complainant of this case is a bonafide consumer as per the C.P.Act,2019?
2. If this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition?
3. If the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed by him?
4. If the O.Ps had levied illegal interest and penalty upon the complainant of this case?

Issue No.1 & 2:

As it appears that the complainant had obtained the loan from the O.Psto the tune of Rs.4,06,451/- to be repaid in 24 monthly E.M.Is @ Rs.2169/- commencing from 5.2.20 till 5.1.2022.The O.Ps have not disputed the same.Moreso, the complainant resides at Darghabazar in Cuttack District as per his address given in the complaint petition.Thus this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed and the complainant is a bonafide consumer as it appears.Accordingly issue no.1 & 2 are answered in the affirmative.

Issue No.3

Sole contention of the O.Ps as per their written version is that since when there is an Arbitrator appointed to decide the dispute in between the complainant and the O.,Ps, this Commission lacks jurisdiction in order to entertain the complaint petition but the complainant vehemently objected that the sole Arbitrator namely Sanjay Agarwal appointed was not with his consent.The O.Ps have not proved any document in order to show that the complainant had consented to appoint the said Sanjay Agarwal as the Arbitrator in order to decide the dispute between himself and the O.Ps.As such this issue is answered in negative.

Issue No.4

As per the averments of the complaint petition, the documents therein, it is proved that the complainant was asked to pay by the O.Ps illegally and exorbitantly without taking into consideration of his representation.Accordingly this issue is also answered in the affirmative.

 

Now coming to the prayer as made by the complainant in his complaint petition and keeping the pandemic situation in mind, the O.Ps be directed to refrain themselves from taxing the complainant exorbitantly and thereby harassing him.On the other hand, the complainant should cope up with the O.Ps and clear the outstanding arrears systematically without jumping into further litigations.However, no cost is awarded in this case.

 

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 5^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                Sri Debashis Nayak

                                                                                                                          President

.

 

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.