Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.

The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant is a customer of Bajaj Financial Ltd. Being acute Financial problem he took loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.P for his livelihood for self employment in the year 2019 with EMI of Rs.8,491/- but the Complainant paid EMI of Rs.8,419/- regularly till eight numbers of EMI vide Loan Agreement No. X79GPLEW936832 vide Customer ID - 119106804. Subsequently due to Covid-19 as per guide line O.P stated that the rate of EMI has been increased by Rs.5,487/- and O.P also started a new Loan Agreement No. X79FGPFY687956 dated 09.05.2020. The O.P started the said new loan without the consent of the Petitioner as the O.P claimed 30.01%. The O.P illegally closed the 1^st loan and the 2^nd loan tenure of 72 months is very lengthy for which the Complainant suffered financial loss. The Complainant requested the O.P to cancel the 2^nd loan and after adjustment of the 1^st loan. But the O.P did not take any step. Finally the Petitioner sent Lawyer’s notice to the O.P on 24.07.2021. But the latter did not reply. The above activities of the O.P amounts to deficiency in service and caused mental pain & agony. The Complainant therefore prayed for directing the O.P to stop the 2^nd loan and start 1^st loan after adjustment of the previous EMI with balance amount of Rs.59,992/-, Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

The O.P did not contest the case and this Commission was compelled to contest the case ex-parte against the O.P.

The Complainant in order to substantiate the claim and establish the allegation adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit and documentary evidence in the form of different annexure.

After perusing the entire case record it transpires that there is no defence case in order to controvert the allegation made out in the complaint.

The annexure “A” discloses that the Complainant, Utpal Saha took the loan to the extant of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.P against EMI of Rs.8,491/-. The document also discloses that the O.P started a new loan agreement bearing No. X79FGPFY687956 dated 09.05.2020. The rate of interest is 30.01% with is more than the former one. The allegation of the Complainant is well proved that there was a new loan agreement without consent of the Complainant. In fact it cannot be termed as an agreement since the Complainant not at all had been informed or signed to the same. Therefore, it is unilateral. The Complainant also proved the notice of the Lawyer by which the allegation against the O.P was brought to the notice of the O.P. The said allegation stands uncontroverted since the O.P preferred not to reply to the same.

In the background of the discussion made here in above vis-à-vis the observation deducted there in the Commission is of the view that the Complainant successfully proved the case against the O.P.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds ex-parte against the O.P.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte. The Complainant do get an award with a direction to the O.P to stop the 2^nd loan and continue the 1^st loan after adjustment of previous EMI of balance due amount of Rs.59,992/-.

The O.P is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 1 (One) month from the date of passing this order i/d the Complainant shall be entitled to get an interest @ 6% P.A from the date of passing this order till the date of its realization.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.