CC/223/2020

                                                              Date of Filing: 28.02.2020

                                                  Date of Disposal: 14.06.2023

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JUNE 2023 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 223/2020       

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER                                          

Smt. Shalini Ramdas

D/o. Ramdas

Aged 32 years

Resident of No.37,

Keerthi Acc Marathahalli,

Updation 2^nd Cross

Ashwath Nagar

Bengaluru-560 038.

(Rep. Sri. Pawan K.M. Advocate)                                      …   COMPLAINANT.

The Manager

Axis Bank Ltd. Loan Centre

Lalbagh Road

(Rep. Sri.Jai.M.Patil & Mohan Malge Advocates)                                               .                                                                              ..  OPPOSITE PARTY.

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

01.    The present complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay the damages of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs                             only) and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) and Rs.5000/- of  litigation cost with interest and to grant such other reliefs as this Commission feels fit in the interest of Justice and Equity.

02.    The complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.9,00,000/- on 21.07.207 from the opposite party bank.  The rate of interest was 11.49% per annum. Monthly EMI was fixed at Rs.19,789/- for a tenure of 60 months. The complainant had been paying the monthly instalments on its due dates regularly. To the shock and surprise of the complainant, the opposite party started demanding her to settle the loan amount at once. She could not able to clear the loan as demanded by the opposite party at once. The officials of opposite party bank started to visit her residential premise and her native place where her aged parents were staying. And threatened the complainant as well as her parents with dire consequences. The complainant approached the opposite party bank and made several requests but of no use.  The acts of the opposite party caused her mental suffering and financial hardship. The complainant left with no other alternatives to approach this Commission for redressel of  his grievance under CP Act 2019 for deficiency of service of opposite party.  Hence, this complaint.       

03.  The notice of the complaint was duly served on opposite party, The counsel for the opposite party filed detailed version, partly denied the averments made by the complainant.  

04.  The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

ii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

iii) What order?

05.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows :-

Point No.1 & 2:  In the Negative.

Point No.3:  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

06. POINT NO.1 & 2:-

To avoid the repetition of the facts of the complaint we have discussed both the points together. The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of services of the opposite party.

        The point to be noted here is that this commission has observed that the notice of this complaint was duly served upon the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party filed detailed version, partly denied the averments made by the complainant. Further on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the case was posted for the evidence affidavit of the complainant on 22.09.2020.

10.   Since from 12.11.2020   till this day the complainant remained absent and didn't let his affidavit evidence. It is the burden on the complainant to prove his complaint through his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complainant did not file any affidavit in the form of his evidence.

11.      Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 contemplates that the District commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the code of civil procedure, while trying a suit in respect of reception of evidence as affidavits. Therefore, the complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit evidence by entering into witness box. That has not been complied by the complainant in the present complaint in hand. The complainant had failed to prove the burden casted on him. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services as alleged.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in negative.

12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons,

        We proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 14^th day of  June, 2023)   

(REKHASAYANNAVAR)       (RAJU.K.S)          (SHIVARAMA, K)    

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

-NIL-

Documents marked for the complainant side:

-NIL-

 Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

(REKHASAYANNAVAR)       (RAJU.K.S)          (SHIVARAMA, K)