Date of filing:  05.01.2022

                                                      Date of Disposal: 29.03.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 03/2022

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sandeep Kumar Gupta,

Aged About 46 Years,

S/o. Sri. Likchand Gupta,

Residing at No.D-008,

Samhita Rainbow MTB,

Vibgyor School Road,

Thubrahalli, Bangalore-560066.

Axis Bank,

No.15, 2^nd Floor, Sri Narayani Arcade,

ITPL Main Road, Above Bata

Showroom, Bangalore-560037.

Rep. by Managing Director.

(Represented by Sri.Jai M. Patil, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to accept the application and provide the moratorium as per the RBI guidelines and grant such other reliefs.

02.    The case of the complainant is that, on 05.05.2021 the Reserve Bank of India announced moratorium to the borrowers who have suffered due to pandemic.  The complainant since from 2020 lost the job due to pandemic and unable to get another job and he and his family were surviving on the savings.  As per RBI guidelines the complainant approached opposite party Kundanahalli Branch on 29.09.2021 to submit application for moratorium benefits as per RBI guidelines.  The opposite party Bank has refused to accept the application by stating the last date was 20.09.2021.  But as per RBI guidelines the last date for application for moratorium was on 30.09.2021.    The state bank of India has also allowed the borrowers to apply for the moratorium till 30.09.2021. 

03.    Further the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsmen and utter surprisingly the Banking Ombudsmen rejected the complaint and came to conclusion that, the complainant did not approach the Bank to submit his documents within stipulated time.  However the complainant approached the OP bank on 29.09.2021, but the Bank has refused to accept his application.  Ombudsmen has passed the order arbitrarily against the policy of RBI. 

04.    Due to refuse to accept the application from the complainant and impugned Banking Ombudsmen order the complainant has impacted monetarily and he pressurized to pay EMI with no other way, due to this the complainant having apprehension of loss of his sole roof.  It is the fundamental legal right as approved by the RBI.  Hence there is no other way the complainant approached this Hon’ble Commission and pray for grant the relief as sought.

05.    The opposite party filed its version by denying the claim of the complainant.  The opposite party specifically stated that, the present dispute has arisen out of the contractual relationship and the same does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant availed credit facility and thereafter committed default.  Further the complainant wanted to opt for the moratorium towards the repayment of loan for that, he has to submit application within 20^th September 2021.  The complainant approached the opposite party Bank with application on 29.09.2021 after the lapse of last date of filing the application.  The complainant himself failed to file application within stipulated time and approached this Hon’ble Commission for illegal benefit.  Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.

06.    Based on pleadings and documents the points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in refuse to receive application for moratorium?

  (2) Whether the complainants are entitle for the 

    relief as sought ?

       (3) What order ?

07.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :  In negative

Point No.2 :  In negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS

08. POINT NO.1 & 2:-  To avoid the repetition of facts of the complaint we have discussed point No.1 & 2 together.  The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of service by the opposite party.  The main allegation of the complainant is that, in-spite of RBI guidelines the opposite party refused to receive the moratorium application on 29.09.2021, even the last date for application was 30.09.2021.  To substantiate this fact the complainant has not filed his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Since from 03.03.2022 the above complaint is posted for complainant’s evidence, the complainant neither appeared nor filed his affidavit in the form of his evidence. 

09.    Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contemplates that the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit in respect of receiving of evidence on affidavits.   The complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit evidence by entering in to witness box.  Same has not been followed by the complainant in the present complaint.  The complainant had failed to prove the burden casted on him.  In view of the above, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged.  Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 in negative.

10.    POINT NO.3:-     As discussed supra, for the foregoing reasons we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th Day of March, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

• NIL -

Documents marked for the complainants side:

• NIL -

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

• NIL –

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

• NIL -

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•