Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 5 pages 3 separate sheet of paper. 

BY - SRI. SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite PartiesNo.1 and 3 are the Finance Company from where the Complainant,who is a student,took a Hire Purchase Loanagainst Account No.TLKTWL00100003294144 towards purchasing a Two-Wheeler Motor Cycle No.WB-30AC-4546 from Opposite PartiesNo.2 and 4 on 14.12.2018.

2. As alleged by the Complainant, the Opsdid not handed over the copy of Hire Purchase Agreement along with the Terms & Conditions.The EMI @Rs.2,740.00 was deducted through ECS from Canara Bank A/c No. 3403101004879 of the Complainant.

3. On 30.07.2021, the Op No.2 asked for repayment of full loan amounting to Rs.8,590.00 which the Complainant paid in full vide Receipt No.IND23504391INR and on 20.05.2022, the Op No.2 again demanded Rs.1,100.00 over telephone with subsequent several reminders. Being astonished, the Complainant informed the Op No.2 about the repayment of loan in full and therefore, on 21.05.2022 he asked for a Statement of Loan A/c No.TLKTWL00100003294144,which the Op provides on the same day.

4. The Complainant came to know from the said Statement of Accounts, the Principal of Rs.62,621.00 and the Interest of Rs.20,334.00 i.e. total Rs.82,950.00 is fully paid. The total loan repayment EMI was 21 and the last EMI was on 08.08.2021. Whereas the last EMI along with other installment of Rs.8,590.00 fully repaid by the Complainant.

5. The Complainant has also came to know from his Bank Statement, an illegal deduction of @Rs.590.00 x 22 Times = Rs.14,680.00 in total on 25.03.2022 from his Canara Bank A/c No.3403101004879 by the Op.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To direct the Opsfor providing relevant documents of Motor Cycle No.WB-30AC-4546 to the Complainant.

2. To direct the Ops to refund the illegal deduction of Rs.14,680.00 to the Complainant.

3. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 for illegal harassment and disturbances of education of the Complainant.

4. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.15,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

5. Any other reliefs.

6. Notices were duly served upon the Opsbut, Opshave preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them.

7. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Ops.

8. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

9. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Complaint, Examination in Chief on Affidavit and other supporting documents filed by the Complainant.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. From the material of record this Commission neither found any Loan Sanction Letter and Loan Agreement containing the Terms & Conditions nor the EMI Amortization Schedule by which the net actual outstanding balanceof Principal and Interest can be correctly ascertained.But, from the submitted Loan Account Statement generated on 21.05.2022 for the period 08.01.2019 to 07.04.2022 it is noticed that the Tenure of Loan wasfor 31 Months, EMI Periodwas from 08.01.2019 to 08.08.2021, Rate of Interest @Rs.12.50%, Amount Financed Rs.62,621.00, Disbursed On 14.12.2018, Matured On 08.08.2021, Total Installment paid Rs.82,955.00 consisting of Principal for Rs.62,621.00 and Interest for Rs.20,334.00.

5. In the instant complaint, the Complainant failed to mention the date for cause of action. It is observed from the Page No.4 of the Complaint as well as Page No.2 of the Evidence-in-Chief on Affidavit by the Complainant, the Complainant statedthat the Op No.1has collected @Rs.590.00 for 22 Times on 25.03.2022 i.e. Rs.14,780.00 in total but, from the Bank Statement as well as simple arithmetic calculation by multiplying @Rs.590.00 x 22, the total amount stands for Rs.12,980.00 and obviously not Rs.14,780.00. Apart from that, the number of EMI was 31 but, in the instant complaint at Paragraph No.9 of Page No.3 it is mentioned as 21.

6. Moreover, from the Loan Accounts Statement it is found that multiple times the Complainant EMI got dishonored / bounced in bank due to ‘insufficient fund’.

7. It is a big question, how the Complainant without receiving any copy of Loan Agreement, Loan Sanction Letter, Amortization Schedule etc. accepted the Hire Purchase and continuedby paying EMI for a long period ? Apart from that it is reflected from the Statement, the Op22 times collected the ‘ECS Return Charges’@Rs.590.00on 25.03.2022from the Complainant’sBank Account where the due date for each ECS is clearly and properly narrated. We do not find any irregularities in the system generated statement by the bank concern.

8. Under the above facts and circumstances, the Complainant has failed to bring home the Elements of Negligence and Gross Deficiency in Service on the part of the Ops.

1. Therefore, the Complainant is not at all entitled to any relief.

10. Both the points are decided accordingly.

11. Thus, the complaint case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-96 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the Ops; however,without any order to cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.