Sri Manoj Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)


The Manager, Bajaj Finserv - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.K. Mohanty & others

18 Dec 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/39/2022
( Date of Filing : 18 May 2022 )
1. Sri Manoj Kumar Rout
S/o- Harihara Rout, At-Satiuti, Po- Chandrakantabindha, PS- Pirahat, Dist- Bhadrak
1. The Manager, Bajaj Finserv
1st Floor, R.C. Behera Market Complex, Above Salandi, By-pass, Bhadrak, Dist- Bhadrak - 756100, Odisha
2. The Zonal Manager, Bajaj Finserv
1201, 12th Floor, Infinity Bench Mark, Plot No. 9-1 Sep &Sgp Sector-V, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700091
Dated : 18 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement


Consumer Complaint No. 39 of 2022.

                                                                                                                                         Date of hearing     :   14.11.2023.

Date of order                 :   18.12.2023.

Dated the 18th day of December 2023.

Sri Manoj Kumar Rout,

S/o:-Harihara Rout, At:- Satiuti,

Po:-Chandrakantabindha, P.S:- Pirahat, Dist:- Bhadrak.  

                                                                                     …………..  Complainant.


          1.       The Manager, Bajaj Finserv

                   1st Floor, R.C. Behera Market Complex

                   Above Salandi By-pass, Bhadrak, Dist:- Bhadrak,

                   Odisha, Pin-756100.

          2.       The Zonal Manager, Bajaj Finserv

                   1201, 12th Floor, Infinity Bench Mark,

                   Plot No. 9-1 Sep & Sgp Sector-V, Bidhan Nagar,

                   Kolkata West Bengal-700091.

.…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

            1.  Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

          2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

For the Complainant :  Sri B.K. Mohanty, Advocate & Associate.

      For the Opp. Party             :  Sri A.K. Nayak, Advocate & Associates.

                                                J U D G M E N T.


          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Fact of the case is that, the complainant placed an order on dated 25.12.2021 to purchase a GIMBL Video Shoot Stand from his EMI Card bearing Agreement No. 4C8MRRHV193586 with original finance amounting to Rs.9,990/- and the loan disbursement date was 17.01.2022. Basing upon his placement order, the complainant did not receive the said commodity from O.Ps. Complainant did not receive any telephonic call, or one time password to confirm the delivery by the mail agent of O.Ps. Regarding this, the complainant made a complain for delivery, the O.Ps created an track order which reflects order placed, order confirmed, dispatched & delivered, the order confirmed dispatched on 27.12.2021 & delivered to complainant on 15.01.2022. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. Without delivering the order placement article the O.Ps are regularly deducting money (EMI) under consumer durable loan. The O.Ps are also debited two numbers of EMI on dtd.02.02.2022 & 02.03.2022 amounting Rs.1,665/- each from the account of complainant it reveals in the summary of loan financial summary as on 21.03.2022.  The complainant has issued an advocate notice on 18.03.2022 & the O.Ps acknowledged the same & repudiated the facts & stated the delivery has been made on 07.01.2022 against the loan A/c No. 4C8MRRHV193586 hence the O.Ps are unable to cancel the loan.

O.Ps submit that, the complainant had purchased a Consumer Durable from the Dealer by availing a Loan from the O.P. vide Loan Account No.4C8MRRHV193586 for Rs.9,990/- dated 17.01.2022 with a monthly EMI of Rs.1,665/- to be paid for 6 months commencing from 02.02.2022 & ending on 02.07.2022.The entries in the statement of account, all the EMI’s have been paid on the due date without any default and the said loan account stands closed as on date and the No Objection Certificate has also been issued. The O.P in good faith had connected with the dealer who had then communicated that the delivery was done duly in the residence of the complainant and the same is evident from the delivery challan. This O.P. is the financier which provides loans to its customers and is not concerned with any of the defects if found in the product purchased by its customers. The O.P. is not aware about the said allegation as the complainant has specifically raised as against the dealer/merchant only who are not impleaded as a party to the said case and that the said dealer shall only be responsible to answer the said contents. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint under objection as against the O.P. It also emphatically denied the prayer clause with all the submission made therein and   questioned the very point of maintainability.

Hearing the rival contention, this commission frames the following issues to adjudicate the consumer dispute:-


  1. Whether the consumer complaint is maintainable?
  2. Whether the complainant has paid for the product ordered but did not receive the product?
  3. Whether these OPs have committed deficiency in service?
  4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to?

At the outset, the complainant has admittedly placed an order to purchase a GIMBL Video Shoot Stand and to pay against the order has preferred to take financial assistance from these OPs. So, all matters relating to the product cannot be attributed to these OPs. This instant complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Ideally if the product has not reached the complainant, he should have made the seller and the courier company as necessary parties. In absence of those parties the present complaint is not maintainable. So, issue No.1 is answered against the complainant and in favour of these OPs.

The annexure-d filed by these O.Ps “Proof of Delivery” does not bear the signature of the complainant as a proof of receipt of the item. But in view of non-maintainability of the complaint, this commission cannot proceed further. There is no deficiency by these OPs as they have closed the loan after repayment issued “No Dues Certificate” in favour of the complainant. In view of non-maintainability of the present complaint, this complaint is not entitled to any relief.

O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is disallowed as not maintainable.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of December 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.


Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.