Brief facts of the case is that the complainant had received a phone call from customer care executive for a loan offer outside credit limit on the credit card under “The Free look Cancellation Period of 15 days” with no interest charges with an instant credit of an amount of Rs,2,41,000/ to the complainant’s Bank account.The executive had explained in detail the terms and condition of the loan over phone particularly its policy of free cancellation within a period of 15 days if the loan not liked by the complainant.The complainant agreed to accept the loan and the loan amount of Rs,2,41,000/ (Rupees Two lakh Forty One Thousand) only was credited in the complainant’s account bearing no.10048434008 with the IDFC Bank Limited on 12.04.2023.The complainant stated that though he had no immediate requirement of the subject loan, he decided to refund the loan amount of Rs,2,41,000/ on 15.04.2023 within two days under transaction reference “YIDN1842652734” by speaking with OP’s customer care executives the procedures of refund over phone.The complainant further stated that in-spite of the full refund of Rs,2,41,000/ (Rupees Two Lakh forty one thousand)only within 2 days and during the Free look cancellation period of 15 days the OPs levying all types of charges associated with the loan amount like pre-closure fee,processing fee,interest fee and other such charges reflected an absurd due amount of Rs,2,50.000/ in complainant’s statement without adjusting the refunded amount of Rs,2,41,000/-.The complainant has sent several emails on several platforms to redress the issue(On16.04.2023 to the Net Banking platform,on 18.04.2023 to Card services Department,on 29.04.2023 to the OP ) but the OP party failed to resolve the grievance.The complainant further registered a complaint before the RBI Ombudsman vide Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman scheme 2021 on 16.05.2023.The Ombudsman had closed the complaint vide letter dated 09.06.2023 by stating that the Pre-closure charges refund would be reflected in the complainant’s accounted. The Opposite party further levying the charges on the disputed balances/charges which ought to have been reversed. The collection executives time and again called and harassed the complainant over phone and demanding the payment illegally .The complainant tried his level best to sort out the issue but the OP did not respond positively.Finally,the complainant approached the commission and prayed as mentioned in complaint petition for the ends of justice. On perusal of records, we find that notice was served upon OP on 25.07.2023 and the OP filed his WV on 31.10.2023. Admittedly statuary period for filling WV by the OP have already been elapsed and as such the case run ex-parte against the OP.Hence,WV filed by the OP can not be entertained. Points for Determination 1) Whether the OP are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainants?
2) Whether the OP have indulged in unfair trade practice 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for? Decision with Reasons Point Nos. 1 to 3 :- The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion. We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainant has filed his Evidence supported by affidavit and also has filed his BNA.The complainant availed a credit card loan amount Rs,2,41,000/ above his credit limit by the name of a 15 day Freelook Cancelation period upon the insistence of the bank’s Customer Care Executive.Despite repaying the credited amount of Rs,2,41,000/ within 2 days of the issuance of the loan,the bank levied several charges which causes inflated due amount of Rs,2,50,000/. OP failed to adjust the repaid amount of Rs,2,41,000/ as per the freelook cancelation period on the reflected statement of the OP dated15th April,2023. Here,if we go through the statement made by the complainant that all the discussion and crux of the matter dealt over phone during the conversation with customer care executive of the OP Bank who insisted the complainant to avail the subject loan with those Terms and Conditions as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint petition.There was no documental evidence annexed related to the issue of loan criteria however,it is evident from the efforts of the complainant that he runs from pillar to post for the unauthorized charges and to resolve the issue as early as possible.The complainant have written a complaint on the Net Banking platform of the OP,thereafter mailed to Card services Department of the OP.He registered a complaint before the RBI Ombudsman via RBI integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 and several emails to OP.It was OP bank which shows no response and delayed tactics to harass his own customer. From the conduct and intention of the OP regarding the resolving of the subject loan amount and levied of all additional charges ,it is observed that the OP have not given the priority to the issue and neglected the same. In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the stipulation of the request, we have no hesitation in concluding that the OP has committed deficiency in service and also has indulged in unfair trade practice.It was the sole responsibility of the OP to legalize all their important documents related to the issuance of loan and levied of all charges. The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. OP is bound by promises made by its executives acting as bank agents,it cannot disclaim the terms promised by its agents. We apprehend that it might be a deliberate attempt on the part of the OP Bank to grab the innocent customers in an illegal way by creating pressure on him. We also apprehend that in some cases they might have been successful in grabbing the hard earned money of their customers specially those customers who are not able to reach to the commission. The OP has miserably failed to prove their claim. It is absolutely a fake and fictitious demand of the OP. In the light of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established the case against the OP. The Bank authorities have not entered into appearance and not responded the court’s notice at the stipulated period.So it leads to negligence of duty and unfair trade practice on the part of bank ,they tried to escape from their liability. As such we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and unfair trade practice have been adopted in the said matter. In the result the complaint succeeds . Hence, ORDERED That the Complaint Case be and the same is disposed of on ex-parte against OP OP Bank is directed to settle and withdraw the claim of Rs,2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) only all the erroneous charges levied upon the consumer within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. OP Bank is further directed to pay Rs, 5,000 as litigation cost to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to put the matter into execution if the OP transgress to comply the order of this commission. | 
