IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of December, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 103/2023 (Filed on 05/04/2023)
Complainant : Babu T.K S/o Kunjoonju,
Thundiparambil House,
Chingavanam P.O, Nattakom,
Kottayam – 686 013.
(By Adv: Venu Gopakumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) M/s.IndusInd Bank Limited,
Registered Office,
No.2401, General Thimmalal Street Road,
East Street, Contonment, Pune – 411 001,
Maharashtra.
(2) M/s.IndusInd Bank Limited,
No.34, G.N Chetty Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017,
Represented by its Finance Division Manager.
(3) M/s.IndusInd Bank Limited,
Branch Office,
Kottayam Steelite Building,
Near Kottayam East Police Station,
Kottayam - 686 002,
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(All by Adv: Jayakrishnan. R)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.
Upon receipt of notice from this Commission opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased Motor Scooter by availing a vehicle loan of Rs.64,780/- from the opposite party. As per the agreement the complainant ought to have remitted an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month and the total monthly installment was 36 months. It is submitted in the complaint that the complainant had remitted 30 monthly installments to the opposite party and outstanding balance in the loan account was Rs.14,800/- only. However on 6-01-2023 opposite party had issued a lawyer notice demanding to pay Rs.37,238/- to the loan account. According to the complainant he is not bound to pay the amount sought for in the said notice and the opposite parties are trying to collect amounts illegally from him. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievance.
The complainant has not filed any affidavit or documents. It is found that though the complainant has raised allegations against the opposite parties, he has not adduced any evidence by way of affidavit or documents to substantiate his case against the opposite parties, despite giving sufficient opportunities. As the complainant has not filed an affidavit or documents to substantiate his allegations, we find that the complainant miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties. In the above circumstances, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
