In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/235/2022.

Date of filing: 30/11/2022.                     Date of Final Order: 9/8/2024.

Rupa Bhakar

W/o Satyenjoy Bhakat,

Of Bhadreswar Station Road, Ghungirkhal,

P.O. Saradapally, P.S. Bhadreswar, Dist. Hooghly,

PIN. 712124, West Bengal.                                                                     …….complainant

  vs 

1. The Branch Manager,

Bajaj Finserv, Dankuni Branch,

Office at 2^nd floor, Prabhat Sandha Apartment,

T.N. Mukherjee Road, Monoharpur, Dankuni,

West Bengal, PIN. 712311.

2. The Manager,

Bajaj Finserv(Head office)

Office at 12^th floor, Infinity Benchmark,

Plot-G-1, & EP & GP, Sector-V,

Bidhannagar, Kolkata- 700091.……opposite parties

Before:            President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.                      

                         Member, Babita Chaudhuri.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the OP had offered to the complainant for a loan saying that she can get a loan and her civil score is good according to them they say by their authorized person /loan agent.  The complainant was agreed as she needed the loan for her financial issue, then they asked the complainant that what amount of loan she wanted and what her capacity is to pay the EMI, then complainant said them that she need maximum amount ofRs.200000/- and her capacity of paying EMI is maximum amount of Rs.3000/- per month then he agreed with her words.   Complainant was asked for her documents regarding the loan and she gave him her documents.  Before the loan was credited to her account complainant said him that she will be applicable to pay the EMI of amount between Rs.3000/- per month and the said authorized person of the OPs had offered assured to the complainant that the EMI will be given to complainant between the amount that she have stated and loan interest will be 15% to 17% but she requested him for the loan details and the EMI for the loan per month several times but he did not gave that to the complainant.

The complainant also called their loan agent asking the loan details but he did not answer, only two times he received the call saying ‘my boss is out of station soon I will give you feedback’ but no call came from their office.  Thereafter 1 month dated.2^nd September OPs send a message regarding loan EMI which was Rs.8078/- and interest 33% vide loan no.P35MPTP517 loan sanction amount of Rs.183134/- and complainant get Rs.169000/- then complainant asked him that the amount that she have stated and the amount that he is sending is different though she clarified that this is not her capacity to pay the EMI and still now he did not send the loan details.  Then complainant had a conversation with their most probably senior officer of that branch  on 17^th September  at afternoon, in that conversation he was chasing the complainant that why she had not paid her 1^st EMI then complainant said him that she don’t know the loan details also according to the amount that she have stated is totally different and this is not her capacity to pay the EMI and still she had get her loan details in that date.  After 1 or 2 days he said to the complainant that he will see what can he do to reduce the EMI amount and also he agreed that his junior have misguided to the complainant.

On 21^st of September he had sent the loan details (which is after 1 month 13 days later) and requested to the complainant to pay at least the 1^st EMI and he will talk to the higher authority for the reduction of EMI amount then complainant said him that as per request she is paying the 1^st EMI but 2^nd time it won’t be possible and he agreed with the complainant and then complainant paid the EMI on 22^nd of September in the early morning but from that day to still now Mr. Mukherjee never ever once called the complainant and did not take any necessary steps to enquiry and solve the matter.  Thereafter different recovery agents are calling to the complainant and forcing her to pay the EMI on regular basis.  The complainant requested to the OPs a number of times to take some step regarding this matter but she did not get any fruitful result.  The complainant also sends a letter with same request to the Op -2 on 19.11.2022 but in vain.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to reduce the amount monthly EMI from Rs.8078/- to Rs.3000/- in respect of the said loan and to pay a sum of Rs. 200000/-for mental agony, anxiety, misguide and harassment  due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Defense Case:-  The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that firstly the complainant on her own will has availed the Loan which is evident from the consent received by the complainant herself by agreeing to the terms and conditions through the bitly link which was sent to her mobile number 9123395711 through IP Address 2409:4060:2d86:40::318b:7503 which was accepted and hence the complainant in no way can state that she was not aware about the terms and conditions.  That the OP also submits that the OP is not aware about any conversations which has happened between herself and one Mr. Uttam Kumar.  The OP does not have any such agent by the said  name.  The OP has not assured the complainant with any rate of interest of 13 to 17% and hence all the allegations stands false and wrong.  It is only after the complainant had given the consent to  avail the said loan by sharing the details and credentials over the bitly link which was received in her mobile number and by sharing the same the complainant agreed to avail the loan vide loan account no.P35MPTP5176607 for Rs.183134/- dt. 8.8.2022 with a tenure of 36 months  and rate of interest at 33% commencing from 2.9.2022 and ending on 2.8.2035.  The OP submits that out of the total loan amount, an amount of Rs.14134/- has been deducted towards the incidental charges and processing fees which are the mandatory charges deducted only after her consent and the same is evident from the details mentioned in the loan agreement duly accepted online.  The OP submits that the complainant has not honored any EMI from the 1^st EMI which is evident from the statement of account as well.  The OP submits that the reasons best-known to the complainant the EMI’s were not paid due to which the bouncing charges and late payment penalty was levied.  The OP denies to the allegations with regards to one Mr. Mukherjee and submits that the OP is not aware about the communications which has happened between the OP and Mr. Mukherjee and would not like to comment on the same.  The OP submits that the loan was booked basis the consent and the OP had duly sent the transactional message to the complainant in her mobile number which shows that the OP had kept the complainant well aware about  the online loan generated basis the details shared by the complainant through the bitly link on her registered mobile number.  The OP follows the RBI Guidelines and are only entitled to collect the legitimate dues.  The complainant has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Commission by suppressing the material facts and by cooking up a false story with the sole intention to earn easy money by taking sympathy and shelter of this Hon’ble Commission, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. So, the complaint against this OP may be dismissed for want of cause of action.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainant and the opposite partis heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The questions and / or issues involved in the above noted points of considerations are interlinked and / or interconnected with one another.  For that reason and also for the interest of convenience of discussion, all the points of considerations are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

For the purpose deciding the fate of the above noted points of considerations and for the purpose of arriving at just and proper decisions in this complaint case, there is urgent necessity of scanning the material of this case record and also for examining the evidence on record.

After going through the material of this case record this district commission finds that the complainant has filed this complaint petition with the prayer for passing direction upon the Ops to reduce the amount of monthly EMI from Rs.8078/- to Rs.3000/- in respect of the loan taken by the complainant from the OPs and also for payment of compensation and litigation cost.

All these prayers of the complainant side are clearly depicting that the complainant is intending to modify the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dtd.8.8.2022 and also seeking determination of the earlier loan agreement which has been executed in between the complainant and Ops.  Such modifications of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement can only be possible by way of entering into fresh loan agreement in between the complainant and OPs.  In this respect,  this District Commission has no jurisdiction to pass in direction.  For the purpose of getting such direction there is only possibility before the complainant is to approach before the Hon’ble Civil Court for determination of the contract.  Thus it is crystal clear that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to pass such direction which has been prayed by the complainant.

Moreover this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant has not paid any monthly EMI in favour of the OPs but the complainant has intentionally suppressed this matter before this District Commission.  Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant has not come before this District Commission in clean hand.  As the complainant has not approached before this District Commission in clean hand, this District Commission is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any equitable relief.  So it is crystal clear that this case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint case and this case is not maintainable.  As the only jurisdiction for getting relief by the complainant lies before the Hon’ble Civil Court, the complainant has also not any cause of action for filing this case.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that this complaint case being no. 235 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.