Ajaya Moharana filed a consumer case on 23 Jun 2023 against Manager,Vistaar Finance, in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/154/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Jun 2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.154/2022
Ajaya Maharana,
S/O: Kshetrabasi Maharana,
Vill/P.O:Malasasan, P.S:Salipur,
Dist:Cuttack. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
Vistaar Finance represented by its Manager,
C/o: Dr. Bhagaban Sahu,
At:Link Road, Surya Vihar,
P.O:Arunodaya Market,P.S:Madhupatna,
Dist:Cuttack. ... Opp. Party.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 21.12.2022
Date of Order: 23.06.2023
For the complainant: Mr. Kalpataru Mishra,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P. : None.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
The case of the complainant in short is that he had availed a loan amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.P. and accordingly an agreement to that effect was executed but he had not signed the said agreement. It is alleged by the complainant that as per the agreement, he was required to repay the loan amount in 48 monthly instalments. The first instalment was started on 5.4.19 and the last instalment would be due on 5.5.2024. It is admitted by the complainant that he had defaulted in payment of monthly instalments and his cheques were bounced but he has alleged that he had cleared the cheque bounce charges. It is further stated by the complainant that he had availed another loan amounting to Rs.60,000/-. In the second loan, the E.M.I was commenced on 5.10.2010 and the same is to be repaid by 5.4.2024. It is stated by the complainant that he is repaying both the loan without any default. It is alleged by the complainant that the R.B.I had allowed moratorium period to the loanee during the Covid-19 pandemic situation but the O.P had not extended such benefit to him and thereby he had sustained heavy loss. It is stated by the complainant that he had requested the O.P to reduce the rate of interest but the O.P did not allow such prayer, rather had threatened him to repay the loan amount at a time. It is also stated by the complainant that he is ready and willing to repay the loan amount at a time if some time would be granted in his favour by the O.P. The complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer for a direction to the O.P not to take any coercive action against him till 5th May,2024 as by that date he would repay all the loan amount. The complainant has also prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in his favour for his mental agony alongwith his litigation expenses so also to grant him one year time to repay the loan amount.
2. Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte. But the O.P has filed his written notes of submission.
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.P?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?
Point no.ii.
For the sake of convenience point no.ii is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
The complainant has admitted to have availed two loans from the O.P. It is also alleged by the complainant that in the first loan agreement he had not signed but he is silent about signing of the agreement in the second loan agreement where it is mentioned about the First Loan Agreement. Be that as it may, the complainant has not disputed about disbursement of loan in his favour. The complainant has not proved his allegation to the effect that the O.P has not followed the R.B.I guidelines during Covid-19 pandemic situation by not extending the moratorium period in his favour. Hence, that allegation cannot be believed. The prayer of the complainant to extend another year for repayment of the loan is not coming within the clause of the agreement. The complainant is bound by the loan agreement. Hence, the O.P has not committed any deficiency of service by not extending the repayment period for one year and not reducing the rate of interest of the Loan availed by the complainant.
Points no.i & iii.
The complainant has stated to clear all his outstanding dues by 5.5.2024, which is the last date for repayment of the first loan. The O.P although had not filed his written version but participated in the hearing of the case and has filed his written notes of submission. It reveals from the said written notes of submission that the O.P is ready to settle the loan account. Hence, the complainant, if so, advised, he may approach the O.P for settlement of his Loan account. The O.P would do well in disposing the said request/representation of the complainant as per law and till that date the O.P would not take any coercive action against the complainant. As such, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs to some reasonable extent. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is partly allowed against the O.P. Thus, the complainant is at liberty to approach the O.P by way of representation for settlement of his loan dues within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy the order. The O.P is hereby directed to dispose of the said representation if so filed by the complainant as soon as possible and till that date the O.P is directed not to take any coercive steps against the complainant in recovering the loan outstanding dues. In the facts and circumstances of the case,there is no order towards the cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.