DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M.A. 71/2023
Arising out of C.C. No. 420/2022
Date of Filing: Date of listing: Date of Disposal:
30.05.2023 30.05.2023 30.05.2023
Complainant/s:- | Debashis Kanjilal, S/o Late Dulal Krishna Kanjilal of Flat No. 101 at SANTI MANSION at Sarojini Pally, P.O. – Nabapally, Barasat (P.S), District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700126. =Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s: | - The Manager Bajaj Finance Limited
Bipin Sengupta, 4th Floor, Basudevpur, KhanjanChawk, Durgachawk, Opposite of Manjushree Cinema Hall, P.O. – KhanjanChawk, P.S. – DurgaChawk, Haldia – 721602. - Accountant
Bajaj Finance Limited Avishek Mondal, 4th Floor, Basudevpur, KhanjanChawk, Durgachawk, Opposite of Manjushree Cinema Hall, P.O. – KhanjanChawk, P.S. – DurgaChawk, Haldia – 721602. - Accountant
Bajaj Finance Limited Tanmay Hazra, 2nd Floor, Loknath Tower Kadam Tala, Above HDFC Bank Ltd., Opp. To Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Jalpaiguri, P.O. – Jalpaiguri, Pin – 735101. - Executive
Bajaj Finance Limited Ananya Ray, 4th Floor, Basudevpur, KhanjanChawk, Durgachawk, Opposite of Manjushree Cinema Hall, P.O. – KhanjanChawk, P.S. – DurgaChawk, Haldia – 721602. - Executive
Bajaj Finance Limited Ishani Sengupta, 4th Floor, Basudevpur, KhanjanChawk, Durgachawk, Opposite of Manjushree Cinema Hall, P.O. – KhanjanChawk, P.S. – DurgaChawk, Haldia – 721602. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER/4
This M.A Petition No. 71/23 is taken up today for hearing. Ld. Advocate for both the parties are present. Perused the petition. Heard both sides and considered.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
M.A. 71/2023
Arising out of C.C. No. 420/2022
From the contests of the petition filed by the O.Ps on 08.02.2023 after servicing the said petition for non-maintainability. In the petition, the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps stated that they have no customer in the name of the Complainant (Debashis Kanjilal) and moreover they have no connection with this instant case. The O.Ps are denied that the allegations of the Complainant being approached by its representatives to avail the loan. The O.Ps did not have any such policy of the said Complainant and the Complainant / the customer and its customers to deposit any amount as alleged by the Complainant in this case towards the loan processing fees and / or incidental charges and the loan amount is directly disbursed in the account of the Complainant after deducting various incidental charges. The O.Ps also stated that it is the clear act of cheating of the Complainant.
The O.Ps are further stated that the said contents are false and they denied to have the authorized signatories apart from the O.P company i.e. Bipin Sengupta, Avishek Mondal, Tanmay Hazra, Ananya Ray and Ishani Sengupta. The O.Ps also submitted that the complaint which was filed by the Complainant is nothing but only an attempt to waste the precious and valuable time of this Hon’ble Commission so this case should be rejected with heavy cost.
The Complainant filed reply against the application challenging the maintainability of the complaint case filed by the O.Ps. In the reply, the Complainant stated that on 08/02/2023 the instant petition was filed by the Opposite Parties i.e. Bajaj Finance Limited who is the Opposite Party No. 1 as per the complaint and similar petition also filed for the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5 or not i.e. not within the knowledge and information of the bonafide consumer or complainant.
It is evident from the instant petition in issue one Mr. Lal Behari Singh, the authorized legal officer of Opposite Party No. 1 has appeared in the instant case but whether any Vakalatnama and / or authorization from the office of the Opposite Partiy No. 1 has been submitted in respect of the instant case i.e. not within the knowledge and information of this Ld. Advocates of the Complainant.
The Complainant also stated the instant non maintainability petition is neither supported by any verification nor any affidavit. The Complainant also stated that all money transferred was made towards the accounts of said Opposite Parties and it is evident from the record and the Complainant prays it should be rejected.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
M.A. 71/2023
Arising out of C.C. No. 420/2022
Heard the both sides and considered all documents, petitions, complaint and annexures submitted by both the parties.
It appears that there is mixed question of law and facts regarding prayer for non-maintainability which cannot be decided at this stage without further evidence. Hence the petition filed by the O.P is rejected at this stage. The issue will be decided at the time of final disposal of the case.
Thus, the M.A. being No. 71/2023 is disposed of.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
