DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __118_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_12.9.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 28.9.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Debabrata Karmakar, son of late Atul Chandra Karmakar, Boral Main Road, Rakshit More, P.O Boral, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 154.
O.P/O.Ps : The Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. at 1201, 12th Floor, Infinity Bench Mark, Plot G-1, EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-92
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Refusal to issue NOC in favour of the complainant by the O.P has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased a Sony TV for a consideration price of Rs.21,990/- from Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and the amount of down-payment was Rs.4,240/- . Balance amount of Rs.17,108/- was financed by the O.P and the complainant agreed to repay the same by 14 monthly installments of Rs.1,222/- each, starting on and from 5.10.2016. The complainant paid 5 EMIs amounting to Rs.6,110/- and also Rs.11,348/- as one time payment. The O.P asserted to issue NOC in favour of the complainant on payment of Rs.11,348/- being made. But, no NOC was issued in favour of the complainant by the O.P. Further, the O.P demanded a sum of Rs.11,348/- more for issue of NOC. Now, the complainant prays for issuing a direction to the O.P for granting NOC in favour of the complainant and for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is mainly contended that 5 EMIs of Rs.6110/- were not paid by the complainant. Such amount of Rs.6110/- was mistakenly credited to the loan account of the complainant. When detected, the O.P demanded Rs.6110/- from the complainant . There is no deficiency in service on his part and ,therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service caused on the part of the O.P as alleged in the complaint?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have filed evidence on affidavit and the same is kept in the record. BNA is filed on behalf of the O.P, which is also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the entire amount which was loaned to him by the O.P has been paid and notwithstanding such payment of the loan amount, the O.P has not issued NOC in favour of him. Non-issue of NOC in favour of him is characterized as deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. According to the complainant, he made down payment of Rs.4240/-. Except this, he also made payment of Rs.6110/- as amount of 5 EMIs and Rs.11348/- as one time foreclosure payment. In this way, he paid Rs.21,698/- . But, it is argued on behalf of the O.P that they advanced a loan amount of Rs.17,108/- and this amount was agreed to be repaid by the complainant in 14 monthly installments of Rs.1222/- each without any interest. The complainant did not pay 5 EMIs i.e Rs.6110/- ,although it was shown as being paid by the complainant in his loan account. According to the O.P, a mistake was committed and due to such bonafide mistake the 5 EMIs were withdrawn from the account of other customers and credited to the loan account of the complainant. But, the complainant did not actually make payment of 5 EMIs i.e Rs.6110/-. The loan account of the complainant has been rectified and the complainant is still liable to make payment of Rs.6110/- to the O.P and the NOC has not ,therefore, been issued in favour of the complainant . The complainant has not paid the said amount inspite of notice given to him by the O.P.
Heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers , appearing for both the parties . Perused the petition of complaint, written statement, evidences and other materials on record. Considered all these.
The dispute between the parties revolves round a single point which requires determination by this Forum. The point is whether 5 EMIs have been paid by the complainant to the O.P or not.
On perusal of the petition of complaint, it is found that the complainant has nowhere stated in his petition of complaint that he has made payment of 5 EMIs to the O.P and it is not also stated therein by the complainant as to from whom these EMIs have been recovered by the O.P whether from him or from any other person . A gap is left herein by the complainant; he does not make a clean breast of this thing on this point. On the other hand, it is the positive case of the O.P that complainant did not pay 5 EMIs and that the amount of 5 EMIs was shown credited to the loan account of the complainant by the O.P due to bonafide mistake. The complainant has not also been able to file even a scrap of paper to prove that he has paid 5 EMIs to the O.P.
In the circumstances as aforesaid, it is to be considered whether the complainant can get advantage of bonafide mistake committed by the O.P as pointed out above. To err is human and there is no man ever born in this World, who has not committed any mistake. To commit a bonafide mistake is not a blame on the part of the O.P and the complainant cannot get any advantage from such bonafide mistake of the O.P. The complainant has failed to establish that he paid 5 EMIs to the O.P and, therefore, he will have to make such payment of 5 EMIs to the O.P. Non-issue of NOC on the part of the O.P in favour of the complainant is not a deficiency in service on their part as the complainant is still liable to make payment of 5 EMIs i.e Rs.6110/- to the O.P. Rather, it is the complainant who is found to be suffering from deficiency in services and such deficiency is committed by the complainant for not making payment of Rs.6110/- to the O.P.
Upon what have been discussed above, it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the consequence, the case fails .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P, but without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
