Orissa

Cuttak

CC/85/2019

Babita Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P Panda & associates

23 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.85/2019

 

Babita Gupta,

W/o: Sri Narayan Das Gupta,

Resident of Rahim Khan Lane,

Choudhury Bazar,Near Gouri Shankar Park,

Cuttack-753001.                                                          ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       M/s. Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.

(Previously known as M/s. Reliance Capital Limited-Commercialfinance Division),

Having its Registered office address at Reliance Centre,

                  6^th Floor,South Wing,

Off Western Express Highway,

Santacruz (East),Mumbai-400055,

Represented through Managing Director.

 

2.       Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.-Thapar                                                                                                                                              House, 5^th Floor,163,Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Road,

Kolkata-700026, represented through

Branch Head.

 

3.       Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.,

(previously known as M/s. Reliance Capital Limited),

5, Janpath,Unit No.3,Bhubaneswar,

Dist:Khurda,represented through its

                  Branch Manager.                                                                           ...OPP Parties

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    24.07.2019

Date of Order:  23.08.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. P.Panda,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                :            Mr. B.P.Das,Adv. & Associates.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                   

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had obtained financial assistance vide Loan A/c. No.RLAWBHV000315735 amounting to Rs.2,40,00,000/- and Loan A/c. No.RLAWBHV000315890  amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12.5% vide sanction order dated 29.12.2015 and 22.12.2015 respectively.  The O.Ps who had provided the loans to the complainant had hiked the rate of interest on 8.9.2018 i.e. 0.45% per annum effective from 1.9.2018.  The said O.Ps had again three months thereafter, hiked the rate of interest to 0.09% per annum on 13.12.2018 which was effective from 1.12.2018.  The complainant though had protested and  represented to the O.Ps against such hike in the rate of interest and had also sent e.mail to that effect, but no fruitful result had yielded. She was rather demanded by the O.Ps the loan amount with interest for which she had to deposit demand draft on 6.4.2019. Being aggrieved she has filed this case before this Commission claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards her mental agony and suffering from the O.Ps together with another sum of Rs.40,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  She has also prayed for prayed for such other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          In order to support her case, she has filed copies of several documents alongwith her complaint petition.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed, it is barred by principles of estoppel and aquisance and they allege that the complainant had suppressed the material facts also.  The O.Ps admit about the complainant applying for getting loan from them for which she had entered into the loan agreements and had executed those thereby abiding her to the terms and conditions therein.  As per the terms and conditions, the rate of interest was of “floating type” which was agreed by the complainant while entering into the loan agreement.  When the rate of interest was enhanced as per the guidelines to that effect, the O.Ps had to enhance the rate of interest accordingly and they had charged from the complainant the amount as per the floating rate of interest.  Thus, in total they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed with cost thereupon.

          The O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.

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

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?

Issue no.II.

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

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, the written notes of submissions as filed and also the several copies of documents as available from either sides, it is noticed that the complainant had availed loan on two loan accounts from the O.Ps after executing documents to that effect as a loanee.  She had thereby agreed and had abided herself to the terms and conditions thereof.  On perusal of Annexure-A/1, it is noticed that the same reflects about the rate of interest to be of floating and the complainant had signed therein agreeing to such condition.  The said document vide Annexure-A/1 also reflects at the heading “other conditions” at sl.no.13 of the pre-payment charges were to be as per grid.  Thus, when the complainant had agreed to such terms and conditions while obtaining the said two loan amounts as per the loan accounts, she has to bear and repay the loan as per the floating rate of interest and all other charges as accrued thereon.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the par of O.Ps.  Hence this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                                          ORDER

          The case of the complainant 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 23^rd day of   August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. 

                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                      President

                     

                                                                                                              

                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member