BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 398/2019 Filed on 08/11/2019

ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  After accepting the notice the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 06/01/2020 the opposite party was declared ex parte. 
3. The case of the complainant in short is that on 19/10/2017, the complainant purchased a bajaj Vikrant V 15 bike with the financial assistance provided by the opposite party.  Initial payment of Rs.19,000/- was made by the complainant.  The equal monthly installment fixed was Rs.2,518/-.  To pay the equal monthly installment, the complainant issued cheque of IDBI Bank in which the complainant is having his salary account.  Accordingly on each month the fixed EMI was deducted from the salary account of the complainant in IDBI Bank.  Meanwhile the company in which the complainant is working has changed their bank account from IDBI bank to Axis Bank.  This fact was informed by the complainant to the opposite party in the month of January 2019 itself.  As per the instruction given by the opposite party, the complainant submitted an application before the opposite party informing the change of bank account and paid Rs.519/- towards processing charges.  The opposite party informed the complainant that it will taken two months for processing the matter.  According to the complainant though the opposite party has accepted Rs.519/- towards processing fee, the opposite party has not taken any steps to collect the amount from the new bank account of the complainant’s company.  As the process for changing the bank was pending, as instructed by the opposite party the complainant paid two monthly installments directly.  Subsequently the opposite party demanded Rs.450/- per month for a period of 3 months as fine and threatened to initiate legal action against the complainant if he is not paying the fine amount.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  
4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 from the side of the complainant.  The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.  Ext.P1 series are the e-mail Communications.  Ext. P2 is the statement of account and account issued by the opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the statement of account in respect of the account maintain by the complainant in Axis Bank.   There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  Hence we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P3 documents, and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case put forward by him against the opposite party.  In view of the above discussion and on the basis of the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  From the available evidence before this Commission it is evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss.  As the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for such loss.  In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is prevented from levying Rs.450/- per month as additional amount towards fine or late fee and directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the complainant along with Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of remittance/realization.      

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 21^st day of March,  2023.

C.C. No. 398/2019

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

Sd/-

                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT