Case No. CC/178/2018
COMPLAINANT :1. Krishna Chakraborty,
S/O. Harinarayan Chakraborty,
Age about 38 years, by faith Hindu,
By occupation Business,
Residing at Natun Shambhunagar Road
Station, Ruipukur, Kotoyali under
P.S. Kotwali, District – Nadia,
Pin no. 741101, West Bengal.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Finance Limited,
501 Mission Road,
Ranaghat under P.S. Ranaghat,
District – Nadia, Pin no. 741201,
West Bengal.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Rajdeep Majumdar
For OP/OPs : Raja Bhattacharya
Date of filing of the case :01.11.2018
Date of Disposal of the case :25.08.2023
(2)
Final Order / Judgment dtd.25.08.2023
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for Rs.1,770/- with interest, compensation amounting Rs.5,000/-, cost of the case and other reliefs.
He alleged that he had purchased one mobile phone after taking loan from the OP amounting to Rs.10,000/-.Due to some financial problem he could not pay the EMI properly. OP charged some late fee. Thereafter, complainant has intended to pay all dues and in this respect OP has directed to pay Rs.2,600/- and he made full payment on 23.08.2018 and OP used one no objection certificate.
On 30.08.2018 OP deducted Rs.1,180/- from the savings bank account of complainant. He also deducted Rs.590/- from the savings bank account of the complainant on 31.08.2018. By this way OP deducted Rs.1,770/- from the bank account of complainant illegally. Hence the complainant filed this case.
OP filed W/V and denied the entire allegations.
He further contended that complainant purchased one mobile phone after taking the loan from the OP on 0% interest. Said loan was repayable by 8 regular monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per month. Complainant paid 2 EMI in advance and agreed to pay balance 6 EMI within 5th day of next month. Complainant has given auto debit mandate but all the mandates have returned due to insufficient fund. Complainant paid the remaining 6 EMI with some late and for that reason complainant was charged 6 bouncing charges at the rate of Rs.450/- that is Rs.2,700/-. Complainant did not pay those bouncing charges till 23.08.2018. Hence the said account is reflecting in the loan account under the heading overdue amount. Considering the request of the complainant OP has accepted the sum of Rs.2,600/- on 23.08.2018 and on that date NOC was issued. OP did not deduct Rs.1,770/- from the bank account of the complainant. Complainant’s banks deducted the said amount that is Rs.295/-X6=Rs.1,770/- due to bouncing charges for bounce of payment on 6 occasions. He prays for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial complainant did not file affidavit in chief.
Documents
Complainant filed the following documents.
- Original copy of No Objection Certificate dated 23.08.2018.....(One sheet)
- Original copy of Overdue payment dated 23.08.2018......(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Tax Invoice dated 12.11.2017..........(One sheet)
- Original copy of Bank Pass Book vide A/C No.34677894405......(One Book)
(3)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
On perusal of No Objection Certificate issued by OP , it is clear before us that complainant paid the entire loan amount and OP issued one No objection Certificate in favour of the complainant on 23.08.2018 and said certificate is system generated certificate and for that reason no signature of any person appears over the said signature.
So, it is clear before us that complainant has repaid the entire loan amount in favour of the OP. Complainant further alleged that OP has deducted Rs.295/- on 6 occasions amounting to Rs.1,770/-. OP stated in his W/V that he did not take any step for deduction of the aforesaid amount on 30.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 as per allegation of the complainant. He further stated that complainant’s bank deducted the said amount from the bank account of the complainant. He also stated that complainant’s ECS was bounced on 6 occasions and for that reason complainant’s bank deducted Rs.295/- each on 6 occasions amounting to Rs.1,770/-.
On perusal of bank pass book of the complainant, we find that aforesaid deduction has made as “charge received-mandate fail and transfer two investment intermediary.” Complainant’s bank is not the party to this case. Even after receipt of copy of W/V complainant did not include the bank as party. As the complainant’s bank is not the party to this case, so this Commission is unable to pass any order against the complainant’s bank.
On perusal of record, we find that complainant is the consumer and OP is the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant has failed to established his grievance by sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt and complainant is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
(4)
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
