DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 13^th day March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing: 14/11/2022 

CC/225/2022

Vishnu.B

Vaishnavam

Paraburoad, Puthussery 

Palakkad – 678 623

(Party in person)                                                -            Complainant

Vs

1.   Managing Director

Navi Finserve Ltd.

2^nd Floor, AMR Tech Park

Sy. No. 23 & 24

Hongasandra village

Hosur Road, Bangalore - 68

Karnataka

(Ex-parte)

2.   Dharshan

Collection Agent                                                   -           Opposite parties

(Case Abated)                                                                       

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant

The complaint is about the interest and other charges collected on the personal loan availed by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant took an online loan of Rs14,000/- on 21/07/2021 from the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant, the loan amount disbursed to him was Rs. 12,231/- and he has repaid Rs. 10,799/- towards EMIs.  He was getting threatening calls from second opposite party for repayment as according to them the total dues including interest and other charges such as late fees etc. which was about Rs. 14,000/-.  As advised by the second opposite party the complainant remitted Rs. 5,300/- for closing the loan under settlement.  But he has not received the settlement confirmation so far.  Instead he is getting auto generated calls.  Further there is an auto debit instruction lodged with the complainant's bank for EMIs and they will charge Rs. 500/- for every return of ECS.  Hence the complaint.

2.   Notices were issued to the 1^st opposite party.  They didn't enter appearance and hence was set Ex-parte.  Since the complainant failed to produce the correct address of the second opposite party notice couldn't be served on him and hence case against him stood abated.

3.   The complainant didn't file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence.  And the complainant has been continuously absent during the proceedings of the case.  Hence the case was taken for orders based on merit.

4.   As per section 38(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 every case is to be decided by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documents produced as evidence.

In the absence of the above, we are left with no records marked in evidence to analyze and decide the case on merit.

5.   In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 13^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-       

                                                                               Vinay Menon V

                                                      President 

                                                               Sd/-

                                                        Vidya A

                               Member 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                             Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined- Nil

Cost- Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.