Orissa

Cuttak

CC/65/2021

Ajaya Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangeeta Prusty,Propriertor - Opp.Party(s)

self

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.65/2021

 

              Sri Ajay Kumar Pradhan,

S/O:Late Surendra Kumar Pradhan,

Resident of Pithapur(Dalmill Lane),

P.O:Telengabazar,P.S:Badambadi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                           ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1. Sangeeta Prusty,Proprietor,

Prusty Electronics,

          At-Kanika Chhak,Tulasipur

               Town/Dist-Cuttack

 

         2.BanchManager,Bank of India,

         Ranihat Branch,At-Ranihat,PO-College Square,

           PS-Mangalabag,Dist-Cuttack

 

3. V.Vaidyanathan,

Chief Executive Officer,

I.D.F.C First BankLtd.,

Naman Chambers,, C-32,G-Block,

Bandra-Kurla Complex,Bandra East,

             Mumbai-400051

 

4. Manager, I.D.F.C First Bank Ltd.,

At:LinkRoad,P.O:Arunodoya Market,

      Ps-Madhupatana,Town/Dist-Cuttack.                              ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    31.03.2021

Date of Order:  17.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.P no.1  :                 None.

For the O.P no.2:                   Mr. G.Kar,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4:           Mr. D.P.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Godrej split A.C. bearing model no. GIC 18 OTC 3WSA from O.P no.1 on 20.11.19 having obtained finance from O.P no.4 through hire purchase scheme.  O.P no.1 & 4 after completing all the formalities and calculations, received an amount of Rs.7360/- towards down payment and processing charges and had advised the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.4530/- per month for 8 months effective from 2^nd January,2020 till September,2020.  The complainant had provided his bank account number and was made aware that by 2^nd day of each month since January,2020 to September,2020 he should be having sufficient funds for payment of the instalments as and when due.  On 2^nd of January,2020 the complainant had enquired from O.P no.4 and could know that due to network problem the instalment has not been realised from his bank account through net banking system.  The complainant had paid seven number of instalments through Paytm and the last instalment was debited from his loan account in the month of November,2020 instead of September,2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic situation.  O.P no.2 in a routine manner has debited a sum of Rs.177/- 18 times from the S.B. account of the complainant, even the said sum of Rs.177/- was debited four times on 6.3.2021 by O.P no.2 from the S.B. account of the complainant.  In this way, the complainant had to bear a sum of Rs.3186/- towards penalty for which he had to file this case seeking a direction to O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony, financial loss, loss of reputation, litigation expenses etc from the O.Ps.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the four number of O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested this case, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dt.30.5.2022.  However, O.P no.2 has filed his separate written version whereas O.Ps no.3 & 4 have jointly filed their written version in this case. 

          According to the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as he had made some baseless allegations.  He has admitted about purchase of the Godrej split A.C. by the complainant through finance and it was mandatory on his part to have sufficient funds enabling to get the E.M.I amounts to be debited from his Savings Bank Account towards the purchase of the said split A.C.  Since because he had insufficient funds in his S.B.Account, the charge of Rs.177/- was levied as per the Banking circular dt.5.9.2019 which is towards the ECS charge including GST.  This circular was as per the R.B.I  guidelines and the bank has no role in the same. 

          Together with the written version, O.P no.2 has filed copies of several documents specifying the amount debited due to want of insufficient funds in the S.B.Account of the complainant.

          O.Ps no.3 & 4 through their written versionhave also stated about the case of the complainant not to be maintainable and they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.1, 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.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

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

             After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition, written versions together with the copies of documents as available in this case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a Godrej split A.C. after obtaining finance and had agreed to the terms and conditions of the said agreement which he had executed while obtaining the said finance.  According to the said terms and conditions he should have sufficient funds available in his S.B.Account whose number he had provided to the O.Ps during the said purchase but as because the said amount was not available in his account and due to insufficient funds the bank has debited a sum of Rs.177/- from his S.B.Account on each time when the amount was supposed to be debited towards the purchase as made by him.  The said amount is as per the banking circular under the R.B.I guidelines and thus there is no deficiency noticed on the part of the O.Ps.  This issue is thus answered against the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th  day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member