C.C. No. 120/2024

Date :- 04.04.2024.

ORDER

The arguments on admission were heard in the morning session and the Commission has perused the record. It is the case of the complainant interalia that he booked post paid facility from the OP to the extent of Rs.60,000/- for purchasing of goods and services offered by different merchants on website, however the complainant only used Rs.33,000/- from post paid facility which amount has already been returned and for remaining Rs.27,000/- cyber fraud was played upon the complainant by cyber goons despite having taken all preventive measures by the complainant & for which he has already lodged a complaint with Cyber Cell before the appropriate authority on 22.12.2022, but OP through its recovery agent is forcing the complainant to pay the whole sanctioned amount of Rs.60,000/-, despite the fact he only consumed Rs.33,000/- which otherwise have been returned to the OP but OP has not granted any solution rather is using unfair business tactics to recover the amount and even they tried to tarnish the image of complainant without doing any wrong thing by complainant and even has threatened the complainant for display the wrong information against the complainant over social-media and would also lower down his CIBIL Score. It is prayed that OP be directed to close the loan account against the name of the complainant & they be ordered to improve his CIBIL Score and restrained recovery agent from him.

The Commission has heard the argument and perused all the documents.

In nut-shell the case of the complainant is that he applied for post paid advance facility from the OP for Rs.60,000/-  which was granted to him. The complainant used Rs.33,000/-  only and remaining amount of Rs.27,000/- was not used by the complainant rather were used by other person by playing fraud upon the complainant for which he has already lodged a complaint & therefore he is not liable to refund Rs.27,000/- to the OP as he has not used it and his complaint in the cyber cell is pending and therefore OP be directed not to recover the remaining amount from the complainant and OP should close the account.

Certain terms & conditions have been placed on record and one fact which is not disputed that complainant took advance sanctioned of Rs.60,000/- which was accordingly granted, Rs.33,000/- have been used by complainant from time to time and even has been returned to the OP and for Rs.27,000/- his complaint in cyber cell is pending and he is therefore not liable to pay any amount to the OP.

The issue therefore is as to whether demanding loan amount back which is given by OP from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service or not. Apparently the OP cannot be said to be deficient in service who is demanding the loan back, which OP admittedly granted to the complainant and cyber cell might have been investigating the complaint but OP is not a party to that alleged fraud & if the complainant has been frauded by cyber goons as alleged then OP is well within its right to claim loan amount. There is no such condition in agreement that if the complainant has been de-frauded by cyber goons then complainant would not be liable for refund the amount to the OP from whom the complainant has taken the loan. Therefore this Commission is of the opinion that if the OP is demanding the loan back, from the complainant, then it does not tentamount to deficiency in service by the OP, within the domain of provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Therefore prima-facie case is not made out to admit the case or to issue notice to OP.

Complaint case of the complainant is rejected.

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the complainant free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.