In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  297 / 2010.

1)                   Dr. Dilip Kumar Sahoo,

            32, Dr. Biresh Guha Street, Kolkata-700017.                                            ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

            15, Park Street, Apeejay House, 7^th Floor, Block-‘C’, Kol-16.                   ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.  19     Dated  18/06/2012.

          The petition of complaint has been filed by complainant Dr. Dilip Kumar Sahoo against the o.p. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. The case of the complainants in short is that complainant had a loan agreement with o.p. vide no.CF3425943 dt.17.8.06 and he repaid the entire loan amount and no amount is due to the credit of o.p.

          Further case of the complainant is that complainant has repaid the 15^th July, 2009 EMI on 14.7.09 vide receipt no.1433 and also repaid the 17^th October, 2008 EMI on 23.10.09 vide receipt no.17860, but despite the said payment o.p. has charged penalty from complainant vide annex-4. It has been submitted by complainant vide para 8 of the petition of complaint that account number 01190006734 has been changed by SBI for their core banking set up all over India, SBI inserted 10513461091 which has been intimated to o.p. on 21.9.06 and the EMI of 15^th Sept. 2006 i.e. first EMI has been paid on 21.9.06 and complainant has submitted that the question of non-existence of bank account does not arise. Hence, the instant case lodged by complainant.

          O.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in course of argument has stated that the allegation of complainant is frivolous and the instant case is not maintainable.

Decision with reasons:-

          We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence and documents in particular. It is the case of o.p. that the ECS was bounced as per o.p. vide evidence of o.p. page 6 and complainant has rebutted this position and also has stated that since complainant is not a defaulter the question of imposing penalty of Rs.4237/- does not arise. On perusal of the entire evidence on record and documents we are of the view that complainant cannot be questioned as a defaulter and we do not find any justification for imposing penalty of Rs.4237/- and this action on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency of service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

          Hence, ordered,

          That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to issue ‘no due certificate’ in favour of the complainant and is directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

        _____Sd-_____                 _____Sd-_____                _____Sd-_____

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT