Orissa

Cuttak

CC/87/2022

Barun Bhattacharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager(PL),Bajaj Finserve - Opp.Party(s)

T K Mohapatra & associates

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

.                      

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

C.C.No.87/2022

           Sri Barun Bhattacharya,

           S/O: Sachikanta Bhattacharya,

           At:DeulaSahi,SBI Colony,

             Cuttack-753008.                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Manager(PL),Bajajfinserv,At-6th floor,Bajaj Finserve Corporate Office,

Pune,Ahmednagar,Viman Nagar,

                       Pune-411014

 

2.        The Managing Director,  Bajaj Finserve,At-2nd floor,Sri Maa Construction

Below Akash Institute,

                NH-16,Nayak chowk,Madhupatana,Cuttack-753010.                                                ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    09.05.2022

Date of Order:  24.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. T.K.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :            A/R.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that though he had paid all the E.M.Is as agreed upon with the O.Ps, they have been claiming four more E.M.Is from him.  The complainant had procured a personal loan from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.68,000/- vide loan account no.4C1GPL95868700 with consumer ID no.49965973 in the month of November,2018.  The loan was to be repaid in 36 number of instalments with effect from January,2019 to December,2021 @ Rs.3038/-.  During the pandemic situation, the complainant could not pay four number of E.M.Is and when the situation became normal he started paying the E.M.Is.  According to him, he had paid all the 36 number of E.M.Is and had cleared his loan dues but inspite of that the O.Ps claimed that they had rescheduled the loan thereby making it to 44 number of instalments.  It is for this, the complainant has come up with this case claiming refund of the extra four number of E.M.Is as paid by him @ Rs.3038/- alongwith 12% interest thereon with effect from January,2022 till the total amount is quantified and has further claimed from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

Alongwith his complaint petition the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2. Having not contested this case, both the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.8.7.2022.

 

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

          Point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

          Though the O.Ps had not preferred to contest this case, they had filed their writtennotes of submission in this case.  After going through the contents of the complaint petition and the copies of documents as attached to the complaint petition, it is noticed that the complainant had sent a letter to the O.Ps on 15.1.2022 stating therein that on 5.1.2022 he had received a call from the office of the O.Ps about his ECS to have bounced which was required to be paid by anearlier date.  On his query as regards to the rescheduling of the E.M.Is from 36 to 44 number, the O.Ps through their letter dt.29.4.2022 had intimated the complainant to that effect in details.  Copy of the said letter of the O.Ps has been annexed to the complaint petition vide Annexure-2 which clearly explains the valid reason of the rescheduling of the E.M.Is from 36 number to 44 number.  The O.Ps also through their written notes of submission have mentioned about the bouncing of the ECS of the complainant for which the ECS charges were added up to the loan amount thereby the E.M.Is were accordingly rescheduled from 36 number to 44 number for the complainant.  Thus, after going through all these documents, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  This point thus goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Points no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                     President

 

 

                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                    Member