Orissa

Cuttak

CC/39/2018

Jitendra Nath Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman,Bajaj Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M Ghose & associates

13 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.39/2018

Jitendra Nath Sarkar,

S/O:Jogendra Nath Sarkar,

At:Netaji Nagar,P.O:Tulasipur,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.         The Branch Manager,

Bajaj Finserv,

Sreema Construction,H.H-5,

Naya Chowk,Madhupatna,

Cuttack.Odisha.

 

2.         The Chairman,

                Bajaj Finance Limited,

Bajaj Finserv,

4^th Floor Survey No.208/1-B,

Viman Nagar,Pune,

Maharastra-411014,India.                                                    ... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.04.2018

Date of Order:  13.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Ms. Meera Ghose,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps       :                 Mr. R.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

            The case record is put up today for orders.

The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had taken a loan from Bajaj Finance(O.Ps) in order to purchase a Sony LED T.V from the retailer shop, Patra Electronics for a consideration of Rs.26,900/- with condition to be recovered through E.M.Is.  The loan account number of the complainant in this aspect was “4C10CD08298769” and the complainant received an undated sanction order dt.17.3.2015 with 0% interest.  The said sanction order was intimated to the complainant through mail on 22.3.15 along with an extended warranty of Rs.1774/-.  Thus the E.M.I @ Rs.2464/- per month was to be paid by the complainant with effect from 5.5.15 till 5.12.15.  The complainant had paid 4 advanced E.M.Is amounting to Rs.8968/- which has been reflected in the sanctioned order itself.  As per the terms, the O.Ps have deducted from the account of complainant vide Savings Bank Account No.30013056637 in the S.B.I,Tulsipur Branch @ Rs.2464/- from the month of May,2015 to  September,2015.  The complainant has thus urged that out of a sum of Rs.28,674/- including the price of the LED TV of Rs.26,900/- and the extended warranty of Rs.1774/-; by the month of June,2015 a sum of Rs.21,288/- has already been refunded towards the loan account and the outstanding dues was only Rs.7386/-.

            The complainant subsequently received another consumer durable loan approval mail from  the O.Ps on 18.9.2015 with loan account No.4C10CD14497363 reflecting the loan amount of Rs.23,000/- and an amount of Rs.1800/- towards extended warranty premium, and advance amount of Rs.8968/- towards 4 E.M.Is in advance.  The E.M.I was fixed @ Rs.2.756/- and was to be cleared in 9 months.  The claim of the complainant is that he had never applied for such subsequent loan and it is the O.Ps who have illegally tried to cheat him.  Thus he claims that their service to be defective with ulterior motive.  Though approached, the O.Ps had not listen but went on deducting money from the account of the complainant, as a result of which an excess amount of Rs.3632/- was collected from the complainant for which the complainant was constrained to send legal notice to the O.Ps.  The complainant further urges that the O.Ps are liable to refund a sum of Rs.2336/- to him but the same is yet to be refunded for which he had filed this case claiming compensation for mental agony and harassment from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The complainant has annexed copies of relevant documents to support his case.

2.         On the other hand, both the O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their written version wherein they have averred that the case of the complainant is not maintainable having no cause of action which is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.  They admit about the complainant availing loan vide Loan Account No.4C10CD08298769 for a sum of Rs.26,900/- along with E.M.I @ Rs.2464/- and 4 E.M.Is of Rs.8968/- but they also submit that the complainant subsequently had also availed another loan vide loan Account No. 4C10CD14497363 for an amount of Rs.23,000/- with an extended warranty for an amount of Rs.1800/-.  They admit that the complainant had paid 4 E.M.Is for the first loan availed to the tune of Rs.8968/- and about the E.M.I @ Rs.2464/-.  Of course they have mentioned in their written version that the subsequent loan was cancelled which was due to inadvertent technical error and the amount so deducted was refunded back to the complainant’s account.  According to the O.Ps, by virtue of the subsequent loan account bearing No. 4C10CD14497363 a sum of Rs.2556/- is due from the complainant.  They refused to have collected excess amount from the account of the complainant.  Thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the case.

                        Both the O.Ps have also filed copies of relevant documents to support their plea.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out from the complaint petition and the written version as well; this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper adjudication in this case.

i..         Whether the case as filed is maintainable?

2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in this case?
4. Whether there was any unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P here in this case?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.3 & 4.

            For the sake of convenience issues No.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration.  As noticed in this case, the loan incurred by the complainant for purchase of LED TV and the payments’ therein are not disputed by the O.Ps.  But the subsequent loan as stated by the O.Ps is disputed by the complainant.  Thus it is the duty of the O.Ps to establish their stand by adducing supportive evidence.  On perusal of the case record and the documents as available, it is noticed that the O.Ps have not filed the loan proposal or the agreement for the subsequent loan in between themselves and the complainant as alleged.  In absence of such evidence, this Commission cannot hold that the complainant subsequently had availed another loan facility from the O.Ps.  That apart, the complainant has specified that he is entitled to get back from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.2336/- which the O.Ps are yet to give him. There is no specific rebuttal evidence in this score from the side of the O.Ps.  Thus, this Commission arrives at a conclusion that the O.Ps had in fact adopted unfair trade practice by trying to patch it up  with a plea of technical error and thus there was undoubtedly deficiency in service on their part.  As such, both these issues are answered against the O.Ps.

 

Issue No.1 & 2.

            From the above discussion it can well be said here that the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he had a cause of action to file his case.  These two issues are thus answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.5.

            The complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps and they are jointly and severally liable.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund immediately the excess amount i.e. to be paid by them to the complainant together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of 18.9.15 till the payment is cleared.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh) only to the complainant towards the sufferings and mental agony caused to him due to their latches.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainant towards litigation expenses.   This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.