The Complainant is present.

       Judgement is ready it is pronounced in Open Commission in 24 pages 2 separate sheet of paper.

       It is ordered that cc/89/2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Ops.

       Le the Judgement be kept with the record.

By SMT. KABITA ACHARJEE (GOSWAMI), MEMBER

        This case has been filed by the Complainant Sri Tanmay Samanta Son of Late Susamay Samanta Village & P.O. Geonkhali, P.S.-Mahisadal, Dist. Purba Medinipur against Op No.1 Bajaj Finserv, Haldia Branch and O.P. No.2 Proprietor Sahoo Enterprise at Mahisadal Bazar.

        The facts of the case to put in a nutshell as are below:-

        The complainant purchased one LG AC Machine for running his business which is meant for livelihood purpose from Op No.1 Baja Finserva financier and Op No. 2 is the Proprietor of Sahoo Enterprise which is a seller of LG Machine. The office and shop of both the Ops are situated at address within the Jurisdiction of this commission. Having necessity of one AC Machine, the Complainant met with O.P. No.2 and at that time O.P. No.-2 approached complainant to purchase the goods with financial assistance through O.P. No.-01. After discussion he purchased one AC Machine for his purpose. Price of the said AC Machine is Rs. 31,250 + GST Rs. 8,750 total Rs. 40,000/- and fixed ten equal EMI of Rs. 4,456/-, the 1^st EMI date was due on 01/07/2018 and standing instruction was given with  bank account (SBI Mahisadal Branch) from where EMI to be deducted in every month. On 30.06.2018 the  balance was Rs. 1,00,000/- in his bank account.

After completion of all EMI one field officer/manager disclosed that due to their mistake one installment was remained unpaid condition and O.P. advised the complainant to deposit Rs. 4,456/- in cash ; he also stated  that no extra money would be charged for that. As per advice of O.P. No.-01, the complainant deposited Rs. 4,456/- as last installment towards the O.P. No.-01 on 04.05.2019 and SMS was received for the same on 11.05.2019.The Complainant maintained balance in his Bank account, so that no chance of irregular payment of installment to financer- O.P. No.-01 is occurred. On  updating his bank pass book at his banker SBI Mahisadal Branch complainant came to know that the O.P. No.-01 illegally, deliberately and intentionally deducted money from his account.In spite of full payment made by the Complainant in connection with the above named financer, O.P. no.-1 illegally, unlawfully, deliberately and intentionally, deducted (Rs. 295 X 5 )= Rs. 1,475/- + RS. 650= Total of Rs. 2,125/- from the Complainant’s account. The complainant deposited the entire loan/dues amount to the Ops and thereafter he has no dues/outstanding pending in connection with the said loan/credit account. After several reminder to O.P. members for returning the illegally deducted amount of Rs. 2,125/- from the Complainant’s account, the ops did not return the said deducted money. Owing to non return of said money of Rs. 2,125/- on 19.08.2019 the complainant has filed a petition before The Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for peaceful mediation about the said matter. The Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, fixed a date for peaceful mediation and sent a letter to O.P. bearing memo No. 75/PBM/19 dated 02.09.2019 for appearance of both the parties for mediation.On 26.09.2019 complainant appeared before the CA & FBP at Tamluk but O.P. No. 1 did not appear for mediation. Thereafter several times the complainant met with O.Ps but they intentionally harassed day after day to the Complainant.Having no other alternative the complainant has come before the Commission for proper relief asking the ops to return the extra money of Rs.2,125/- deducted for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5000/-.

        Notices were duly served upon the Op No.1& Op.No.2 but they did not contest the case.The case has been heard ex-parte against the Op No.1 & Op No.2

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law ?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

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

        During the trial the Complainant Sri Tanmay Samanta has examined himself as PW1 and he also filed some documents as follows.

1. Bill invoice.
2. Photo Copy of Pass Book.
3. Copy of application of the CAFBP.
4. Letter of CAFBP.
5. Copy of application of the Bajaj Finserv.
6. Report of CAFBP.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transaction made by him with the O.Ps. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

Having regards had to the facts of the case as averred in the complaint and evidence thereof we find thatTanmaySamantaon16.06.2018  purchased a LG AC Machine being invoice No. 718 at a price Rs. 40,000/- from the O.P. No.2 who has issued cash memo in his regard as powered by OP-1.Price of the said AC Machine is Rs. 31,250 + GST Rs. 8,750 total Rs. 40,000/- and fixed ten equal EMI of Rs. 4,456/-, the 1^st EMI date was due on 01/07/2018 and standing instruction was given with  bank account (SBI Mahisadal Branch) from where EMI to be deducted in every month. On 30.06.2018 the  balance was Rs. 1,00,000/- in his  bank account. Op-1 runs its financial business from the office of op-2 and through op-2. From the unchallenged evidence of the complainant it appears that complainant paid all dues i.e. Ten Installments as follows:-

Date-                         Amount

02.08.2018                Rs.4,486/-

03.09.2018                Rs.4,456/-

02.10.2018                Rs.4,456/-

02.11.2018                Rs.4,456/-

02.12.2018                Rs.4,456/-

02.01.2019                Rs.4,456/-

02.02.2019                Rs.4,456/-

02.03.2019                Rs.4,456/-

03.04.2019                Rs.4,456/-

03.06.2019-               Rs.4,456/- by cash

It appears that thereafter S.B.I. deducted money as below

Date                         Amount

04.05.2019                Rs.295/-

06.05.2019                Rs.295/-

10.06.2019                Rs.295/-

10.06.2019                  Rs.295/-

11.06.2019                  Rs.295/-

11.06.2019                  Rs.650/-

       Despite clearance of all dues and issuance of NOC the intermediary i.e. SBI deducted of Rs. 295/- X 2 = Rs. 590/- on 10.06.2019 and Rs. 295/- on 11.06.2019 and Rs. 650/- on the same date as transfer INVESTMENT INTERMEDIATERY the above evidence of the complainant has not been challenged by the Ops filing W.V. or adducing counter evidence. And such deduction of Rs. 1,535/- was done due to the negligence of the OP No.1. Had the op-1stopped the process of deduction of E.C.S. in its system the Bank concern would not have deducted the said amount .So, the O.P. No.1 is liable to compensate the monetary loss cause due to deduction of excess money of Rs.1,535/-. However, both ops-1 and 2, who is powered by op-1, will be liable to compensate the complainant for causing unnecessary harassment to the complainant and they also jointly and severally liable to pay the litigation cost to the complainant. It is worthy to be mentioned that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in respect of Rs. 295/- X 2 =590/-deducted on 04.05.2019 and 06.05.2019 which were deducted prior to his final payment i.e. clearance of his tenth installments on 03.06.2019.

       So, the complainant is entitled to get of Rs. 1,535/- from op-1due to deduction of excess money. However both ops-1 and 2, who is powered by op-1, will be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- and they are  also jointly and severally liable to pay 1000/- the litigation cost to the complainant.

       Accordingly the points for determination are disposed of.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/89 of 2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.

The O.P. No.1 is hereby directed to pay of Rs. 1,535/- the excess amount deducted.The ops 1 & 2, who are jointly severally liable, are  directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as towards litigation costs to the Complainant.

The Ops are directed to comply with the above direction  within 30 days from the date of this order, in default the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution as per law.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the complainant and to all the Ops separately by post free of cost at once.