MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-                     

                    This is an application U/S-35 of C.P.Act 2019. The Complainant alleged the Ops Bank deducted excess amount using ECS mandate and misappropriated the excess amount and not finalized loan account till today.

Brief Fact:-

                     Complainant purchased a vehicle availing loan from Ops Bank to a tune of Rs. 29,74,075/- repable in 40 equal monthly installments from 20.04.2019 to 20.7.2022. 1^st 24 EMI each Rs. 1,13,065/- and rest 16 EMI each will Rs. 47,835/- in toto repayable Rs. 34,78,920/- with interest. The Complainant issued ECS authorization to deduct EMI in every 20^th of each months from Canara Bank, Kendrapara vide A/C No. 3523201000252 for debiting from his account Complainant paid all installments on 32th but the Ops deducted on 33^rd, 34^th, 35^th excess amount to a tune of Rs. 1,21,475.57/- illegally, arbitrary and cause financial loss and prejudiced the  Complainant by practice of “ unfair trade practice” by Ops which also deficiency in service, the loan agreement was also unfair contract. The Complainant claims all returnable amount with deduction of hypothecation from the RC Book of vehicle with NOC. The Ops practiced unfair contract by deducting excess without consent of Complainant.

                     Heard Ld. Counsel Deba Kishore Kar alongwith J.R. Pani and Ld. Prabir Kumar Ray along with A.R. Sethy perused the materials available on record by both sides.

We are framing following issues better adjudication of case in hand-

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the C.C. Case filed within prescribed period of limitation?
3. Whether Ops deducted more, misused the  ECS mandate given to Ops?
4. Whether Ops in deficiency in service and unfair contract, unfair trade practice not delt with fair financing business?
5. Whether the Complainant entitled to excess deducted from his account with appropriate interest which is just & proper alongwith mental agony and litigation cost?

Issue No.1-

                       The Complainant borrowed from a Finance Company DCB Bank Ltd.. The C.P.Act, 2019 well described the service render by any Bank or financing Company made available to potential users coming under “ service” and the service render toward a person on paying consideration is a consumer. The person borrowed and paid interest both banking & finance company is a consumer. The Ld. Counsel for ops submitted the complainant having two vehicle not a consumer is not acceptable to this Commission. Even today economics person below Rs. 8 Lakhs income per year treated as lower income group. There is no such straight jaket formula that what a consumer should have or not for filing a case under C.P.Act, 2019 which prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 50 Lakhs for a DCDRC. Therefore this Commission aware about the pecuniary jurisdiction to file a C.C.Case not what a person possesses in terms of wealth in toto. The contention raised by Ops devoid of any merit.

Issue No.2-

                     Loan accounts starts from dt. 20.04.2019 and continued till dt. 20.02.2022. The C.C.Case filed on 30.03.2022 within the period of limitation.

Issue No.3-

                     ECS mandate given to Ops to deduct in every 20^th of all months till completion of installments. A private Finance Company also a corporate body continuing financial business should not act in such a manner which prejudice the Complainant. Ops did not strictly followed Banking norms as per  RBI not updated online transaction deducted Rs. 113065/- instead of Rs. 47835/- from 20.4.2021 to 20.9.2021, the excess deducted by Ops liable to pay @11.54% interest on Rs. 3,91,381/-.We knew the moratorium not compulsory and binding but only selective these not inclined to availed they could paid, therefore during moratorium , if the Complainant paid then why the Ops  rescheduled the loan arbitrarily. The corporate house could not designed software was completely unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Ops stated in objection some of the cheque dishonoured but could not even photocopy of said cheque and without sufficient documentary evidence.

Issue No.4-

                 The Ops alleged the accounting furnished by Complainant are false but Ops themselves at fault being corporate Financial Institution. It is duty of ops to remain fare & fine not to have shifted the onus on complainant. Ld. Counsel for Ops not answered vital question putforth by this Commission. On 24^th installments on dt. 20.03.2021 closing balance Rs. 7,06,235/- amd the Complainant closing balance Rs. 7,03,268/-, if the ex-gratia added to that then that was also Rs. 7,06,123/-. Then from 25th installment to 30^th installments instead of Rs. 47,835/- the Ops deducted Rs. 113065/- then the closing balance approximately Rs. 49,931.29/- and in 31^st installment it was Rs. 50411.58/-, then the Ops deducted Rs. 47,835/- in 32nd installment then closing balance Rs. 3061.49/- on 20/12/2021 when Ops deducted Rs. 47,835/- which was Rs. 44,74,406/- more after deduction of Rs. 3061.49/-. The Ops in dt. 20.01.2022 again deducted Rs. 47835/- and total deducted Rs. 93009.46/- and again deducted dt. 20.02.2022 Rs. 27,571.45/- wherein all total deducted Rs. 121475.57/- when interest calculated at @11.54% on Rs. 1,21475.57 it becomes Rs. 137574/- upto dt. 20/03/2023.

Issue No.5-

                    The Ops deducted excess from 25^th to 30^th installments instead of Rs.47835/- excess Rs. 65230/- in toto Rs. 113065/- and without any valid reason, without providing actual calculation to Complainant again deducted 32^nd installment Rs. 47,835/- there was a balance of Rs. 306149/- then deducted excess on dt. 20.12.2021, Rs. 47835/- when Rs. 44744/- was excess  again deducted excess on 20.01.2022 Rs. 47835/- when total excess Rs. 93009.46/- then again deducted on 20.12.22, Rs. 27571.45 in toto Rs. 121475.57/- from such date to 20.03.2023 @11.54% will be Rs. 137574.26. therefore by practice of unfair trade practice so also unfair contract the Ops taken excess Rs. 121475.57/- at @ 11.54% interest it becomes Rs. 137574.26. The Ops are being corporate entity have not given correct & fair calculation but misguided, this Commission un irrelevant issues and omitted to submit the point raised by Complainant with appropriate calculations. The point raised by Complainant having force & acceptable to this Commission and other hand the issues raised by Ops are devoid of merit & not sustain able in eye of law.

                                                      O R D E R

                     Taking into consideration of facts & laws discussed above it is directed the Ops shall have to pay Rs. 1,21,475.57/- with @11.54% to the Complainant till date of payment with Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within a period of one month from receipt  of this order failing which the Ops are liable to pay @18% interest till date of payment and also  liable for legal consequences for enforcement of this Commission’s order. Ops shall provide NOC  for deducting hypothecation in the vehicle RC Book forthwith.

                        On the above observation the C.C.Case is allowed.

                      Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.           

       Pronounced in the open Court, on this the 14th day of March,2023.             

                              I, agree

                                Sd/-                                        Sd/-

                           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT