Haryana

Panchkula

CC/177/2022

DR.GULSHAN CHAUHAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	177 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	24.05.2022
Date of Decision	:	04.08.2023

 

 

Dr. Gulshan  Chauhan, ASMO, Room No.136, Block-C, Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank, SCO 153-155, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person along with Sh.Harish Marhia, Advocate.

                        OP already ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2022.

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had entered into an agreement with OP vide personal loan account No.SPLN62489759 and that he had prayed for the granting of  waiver of installment facility as per guidelines of RBI during Covid-19 lockdown but the OP did not respond. The email sent by him regarding further waiver remained un-responded and resultantly bouncing charges were levied. It is stated that OP had failed to inform the complainant that no further waiver of installment was feasible. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.2,500/- was paid by him on the asking of executive of OP, on 21.11.2021, through her phone no.8448998515. Despite the payment of Rs.2500/- by the complainant; the OP has been asking him through telephonic calls to pay additional fine and charges etc. It is averred that many emails were sent to the OP/bank but no reply was received. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 14.09.2022.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in his affidavit(Annexure C-A) contended that  he had made the payment of Rs.2,500/-, in order to get his personal loan no.SPLN62489759, finally settled, on the basis of promises and assurances made by one of the executive of OP  vide her Mobile No.844899855. It is contended that he was assured by the OP’s executive that his loan amount would be cleared and finally settled, in case, he deposited an amount of Rs.2,500/-. It is contended that the OP’s executive had wrongly misrepresented qua the settlement of his loan amount. In this regard, the complainant has placed reliance upon the telephonic conversation between him and the OP’s executive vide mobile no.8448998515 on 22.11.2021. Concluding the arguments, the complainant contended that OP was deficient while rendering services to him and thus, prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint. 

6.               The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             We have minutely and carefully perused  the alleged telephonic conversation between the complainant and OP’s executive, which is available on record  in the shape of Annexure C-2 and find that no such assurance as alleged by the complainant qua settlement of  his loan account qua clearance/settlement of his loan account was made by alleged OP’s executive. As per said telephonic conversation (Annexure C-2), the OP’s executive has merely asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/-.

8.             Pertinently, the complainant has not submitted, before the Commission, the necessary details i.e. the total sanction loan amount, number of installments, duration of loan and numbers of installment paid etc. pertaining to the alleged personal loan account No. SPLN62489759. Further, no proof has been attached qua the payment of Rs.2,500/- by the complainant to OP. Moreover, we are clueless as to the final status of said loan account. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has to prove his own case on the basis of documentary evidence etc and no benefit can be drawn by him out of the lacunas or infirmities of the OP’s case. Admittedly, the OP has not contested the present complaint but the onus to prove the averments as made in the complaint lies upon the complainant. Moreover, the complainant even upon asking of the Commission has failed to inform the loss or damages, which he has suffered on account of alleged telephonic assurance made by OP’s executive through her telephone no.8448998515. As per well settled legal proposition no relief can be provided, in case, the complainant has failed to prove that he has sustained any loss, harm or damages due to deficient services of the OP.

9.             In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, we deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to dispose of the present complaint with the directions to the OP to decide the representation, if any, filed by the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of representation from the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to submit a detailed representation, if he so wishes, containing all relevant facts to the OP.  

10.            The OP shall decide the representation, if any, submitted by the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the submission of representation by the complainant failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 04.08.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                Member                         Member                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                              Satpal

                                         President