Ld. Advocate for the complianant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open commission.

BY - SRI.  SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Partyis aNon-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) from whom the Complainant took a Loan amounting to Rs.1,83,159.00 @34% per annum Fixed Rate of Interest with EMI @Rs.8,934.00 for a tenure of 45 Months vide Loan Account No.U26GPL87992469, dated: 13.09.2018.

2. The Complainant has paid EMI in the March 2020 but, due to COVID-19 and Lockdown unable to pay the balance EMI after 23.03.2020.In April’ 2020 the Complainant applied for Moratorium for the period April to August’ 2020 which the Op Granted accordingly. As per the loan summary dated: 23.09.2020, the Principal Loan amount was due Rs.1,49,350.00 as on 14.08.2020.

3. On 13.08.2020, the Complainant got a phone call from the Op with a verbal proposal for an additionaltop up loan amounting to Rs.1,54,531.00 by closing the previous loan. On the same day the Complainant also received an email from the Op for closure of previous loan account with disbursing the new disbursed loan amount.

4. On 14.08.2020 the Op assured the Complainant through email that the existing account is active and after that the Op denied the matter and claimed for paying the new loan amount with a repayment schedule dated: 23.09.2020 for 36 months EMI @Rs.8,970.00towards payment of Rs.2,66,257.00 in total by 02.08.2023 which the Complainant requested for not to take but, the Op did not pay any hid.

5. On 29.09.2020, the Complainant lodged a Complaint against the Op before the NBFC Ombudsman at RBI vide Complaint No.202021103000963 and the NBFC Ombudsman has been pleased to close the complaint with a remarks “NBFC has followed the extant norms and no deficiency was observed on their part.”

6. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 13.08.2020.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To stop collection of the new EMI till disposal of this case.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00for illegal banking business and such mental agony to the Complainant.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

7. Notices were duly served upon the Op but, Op is preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

8. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op.

9. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?        Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition and other supporting documents filed by the Complainant.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the OP, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. We have heard the submission made by the Complainant and perused the documents on record. It is true that the Op over telephone offered a loan to the Complainant and sent an email on 13.08.2020. The said email was contained a link to view and accept loan commercials and Terms & Conditions towards conversion of existing Term Loan into a Flexi Hybrid Loanbut not at all closure of anyexisting loan as claimed by the Complainant in the Petition.Nowhere have we found any promises about the closure of existing loan account by the Op, except a conversion of the existing Term Loan into a Flexi Hybrid Loan which the Op will process only after receiving the consent from the Complainant. It is also observed that the SMS logs shared by the Op to take request for the new loan from the Complainant which was approved by the OTP delivered on the Complainant’s registered mobile.Therefore, the Op has taken the requisitesteps, followed the extant norms and hence no question of misguidance and fraudulence as alleged by the Complainant.Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

5. Accordingly, both the points are disposed of.
6.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds in part.

Hence, it is

          O R D E R E D

That the CC-7 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte without any order for relief.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.