Orissa

Cuttak

CC/40/2022

Prasanna Kumar Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Bajaj Finserve Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P K Ray & associates

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.40/2022

 

Prasanna Kumar Barik,

S/O:Muralidhara Barik,

Vill:Mugabhanga,P.O:Phulnakhara,

P.S:Cuttack Sadar,Dist:Cuttack,

State:Odisha,Pin-754001.                                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.            M/s. Bajaj Finserv Limited,

Represented through its Managing Director,

                                       Regd. Office:Old Mumbai-Pune Road,

                        Akurdi,Pune-411035

 

2.            Branch Manager,

Bajaj Finserv Limited,

                      2^nd floor,Sreema construction

N.H.5,Naya Chowk,Madhupatana,

                   Cuttack-753010.                                                  ...Opp.Parties

        

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     07.03.2022

Date of Order:    27.01.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              :           Mr. R.C.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he has availed a personal loan of Rs.2,99,000/- from the O.P vide Loan Agreement No.4C1GPL95644181 dt.27.11.2018 which was  to be repaid by him in 36 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.12,049/-.  But the complainant could know that only an amount of Rs.27,79,913/- was disbursed in his favour on 27.11.18 and the rest of the amount has not been given to him by the O.P.  The loan was availed by the complainant due to the pursuance of O.P no.2 who had subsequently on 28.11.20 had motivated the complainant to reschedule the outstanding loan repayment amount and to repay the same in 12 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.4833/-.  Inspite of repeated efforts of the complainant, the O.P has not disbursed the balance amount from the sanctioned amount in favour of the complainant, rather, he has issued the Loan Foreclosure letter on 9.1.2022 to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.2,15,415.10p which was to be paid on 9.1.2022 and it was mentioned therein that the payment made by the complainant after 7.9.21 would incur interest and charges thereon.  According to the complainant, the O.P company had taken more than Rs.4,43,000/- as on 2.2.2022 in 23 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.12,049/- and 15 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.4833/-.  No account statement was ever provided to the complainant by the O.Ps.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that the O.P had practised unfair trade and were deficient in their service for which the complainant has sought for direction to the O.P in order to issue “No Due Certificate” in his favour.  The complainant has claimed compensation towards his mental agony from the O.P to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also demanded cost of his litigation.

          The complainant has filed a bunch of copies of several documents together with his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P having contested this case has filed his written version.  In the written version it is urged about the maintainability of the complaint petition which is liable to be dismissed.  Ofcourse, the loan sanctioned to the tune of Rs.2,79,913/- is admitted but according to the O.P, the differential amount of Rs.19,087/- has been deducted towards various charges which were explained in details as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant when defaulted, the loan agreement was restructured but still then the complainant had defaulted for which the loan was foreclosed and intimation was sent to him accordingly.  The O.P has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ram Deshlahara Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. reported in III (2006) CPJ 247(NC) and Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar, reported in II (2005) CPJ 491 that the disputes pertaining to accounts is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack in C.C.No.81/2008 decided on 30.11.2009 (Deepak Kumar Sahoo Vs. Branch in Charge, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,Bhubaneswar)& (ii) Sheela Kumari Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company & others 2007 NCJ 570; (iii) Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the case of Sreeja Finance Vs. Saumini and Another, 2008(I) CPR 128; (iv) Hon’ble National Commission in Manager, St. Ary’s Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. Vs. N.A.Jose, III 1995 CPJ 58 (NC).   In C.C no.43/2010 of Hon’ble State Commission, Cuttack in Susant Kumar Acharya Vs. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. in this context.

          The O.P has mentioned in his written version in details in tabular form about the loan of the complainant, the reductions as made and the conditions for additional interest levied on the loan account.  He has also provided Suo-moto moratorium from May,2020 to August,2020 to the complainant as per the RBI guidelines on Covid-19 Regulatory Policy.  The O.P has also shown in his written version in a tabular form about the charges remained unpaid by the complainant and about the repeated reminders sent to him in that aspect.  Ultimately, it is the contention of the O.P to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

          In order to support his stand the O.P has filed copies of several documents.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

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 by him?

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

As it appears in this case, the complainant had availed a personal loan from the O.P for a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- vide Loan Agreement No.4C1GPL95644181 on 27.11.2018 and had agreed to repay the said loan in 36 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.12,049/-.  Since because he defaulted the same was rescheduled but still then the complainant without repaying the said loan had come up with this case.  The documents as annexed to the written version of the O.P goes to show that time and again the O.P had tried to get back the loan amount from the complainant alongwith its accrued interest but the complainant had not responded well.  It would be worthwhile to mention here that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the financier is never a service provider and the loanee cannot claim to be availing service from the financier.  When there is deviation to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and when the complainant became a defaulter and had not turned up even after the notices and several requests as made to him, the claim of the complainant does not hold good here in this case. Accordingly, when the complainant became a defaulter, the O.P after giving multiple opportunities to the complainant to repay the loan with interest can never be said to be deficient in his service.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

 

 

                                                           

ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.       

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                   Member