Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

Brief facts of the case:-At the very beginning of the Complaint petition, the Complainant starts with the sentence that he never asked for or took any loan of any amount to purchase anything through ‘credit card’ issued by the opposite party No.1.

However allegedly on 09.03.2022 the Complainant received notices from ‘Credit Information Provider Bureau’ of Bajaj Financerv, which is claimed to be OP 1, an Account Information Report wherein the Complainant was shown as Consumer Loan holder. In the said report, the Complainant’s loan type was shown as ‘Consumer loan’.

But the complainant claims that he never took any consumer loan of 21,000/- or any other amount as loan from OP 1. The Complainant further states that the OP 1 transferred the said loan account to OP 2.

Allegedly, both the opposite parties took attempts to recover the said ‘fictitious’ loan from the Complainant by ‘taking various illegal acts’.

The Complainant further submits that on behalf of OP 1 a case bearing No. C/28237/11 u/s 138 of N.I. Act was filed in the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata against the Complainant on the same issue and the same is claimed to have been dismissed.

The Complainant sent three legal notices through his Advocate, protesting ‘the illegal activities’ of the opposite parties, two to OP 1 and one to OP 2 which yielded no result.

Depicting all these issues, the Complainant at last brings his actual grievance to the focus. The Complainant expresses his agitation by stating that his ‘PAN CARD No. was not removed from ‘civil score (wave sight)’.

Resultantly he was not getting any loan from any other bank or financial institution to run his business smoothly.

In serial No.8 of the complaint petition, the Complainant admits that he is a ‘service man’.

Now the Complainant approaches to this Commission for imposing direction upon the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and sufferings, to withdraw the false allegation of consumer loan, to remove the PAN No. from ‘Civil Score (wave sight)’, to restrain from creating ‘any obstruction/disturbance in the matter of getting loan for his personal or business purpose’.

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer so far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

The complainant is a resident within the geographical jurisdiction of this District Commission i.e. within the District of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-.

 Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

The opposite parties in spite of proper service of notice did not appear before this Commission in course of hearing of this case. Thus the case runs ex parte against both the opposite parties.

Materials on records are perused. A thorough scrutiny of the complaint petition indicates that there are certain areas in the complaint petition which are grossly opaque, questionable and shady.

Firstly, in the Complaint petition OP 1 is shown as Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Previously known as Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. whereas the Complainant claims to have received notice from one Credit Information Provider Bureau of Bajaj Financerv. This is not clear here that how this Credit Information Bureau of Bajaj Financerv is related to OP 1.

Secondly, neither any authenticated copy of the purported notice nor any copy of the Annual Information Report received from the said ‘Bajaj Financerv’ is furnished as annexure.

Thirdly, it is nowhere clarified that what particular illegal acts were undertaken by the opposite parties to recover the said ‘fictitious’ loan. No corroborating documents in this regard have been submitted by the Complainant.

Fourthly, the case before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not actually dismissed. The respective complaint with original documents was returned to the Complainant (OP in the instant case) for filing in the proper court.

And finally, it is inscrutable that by using the terms ‘Civil score’ and ‘wave sight’  what the Complainant intended to mean.   

Now this District Commission is of the opinion that so far as the presentation of the case is concerned, the instant complaint petition obviously suffers from gross inconsistencies and insufficient documentation.

 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of the view that no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the OP financial institutions’ part can be established.

Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

that the complaint case no.158/2022 be and the same stands dismissed ex parte with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.