BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 26^th day of February 2025 FIRST APPEAL No.11/2024 Gajalakhsmi Rep. by Samicannou Gilbert Aroquiasamy No.39 & 40, 2^nd Floor, Singapore Avenue, Muthyrayarpalayam Road.

Moolakulam, Puducherry-605010.

.. Appellant/Complainant Vs

1. IDFC First Bank Ltd, 4^th Floor, 401 – 407, A -Wing, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri(E)

Mumbai – 400 093

2. IDFC First Bank Ltd No.40A,Vivek Akert, Vallalar Salai, 45 Feet Road, Puducherry– 605011.

.. . Respondent/Opposite parties (On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in CC No.05/2021 dated 22.08.2023)

CC No.05/2021 Gajalakhsmi Rep. by Samicannou Gilbert Aroquiasamy No.39 & 40, 2^nd Floor, Singapore Avenue, Muthyrayarpalayam Road.

Moolakulam, Puducherry-605010.

.. Appellant/Complainant Vs

1. IDFC First Bank Ltd, 4^th Floor, 401 – 407, A -Wing, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caver Road, Andheri(E)

Mumbai – 400 093

2. IDFC First Bank Ltd No.40A,Vivek Akert, Vallalar Salai, 45 Feet Road, Puducherry– 605011 .. . Respondent/Opposite parties BEFORE:

DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, PRESIDING MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT Through Power of Attorney Thiru.Samicannou Gilbert Aroquiassamy.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

No representation

O R D E R

(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member)

This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry ( hereinafter called District Commission in short) in CC.No.5 of 2021 dated 22.08.2023. The appellant herein was the complainant before the District Commission and she had alleged deficiency of service by the respondents herein and the District Commission has rejected the complaint.

Gist of the complaint is as follows:

2. The complainant, Tmt.Gajalakshmi filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, alleging that she had not received the consumer appliances for which the loan was applied nor the loan amount and thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The complainant sought several forms of relief, including:

Refund of Rs. 6,428 debited from her SBI account Pay Rs.67,000 penalty levied by SBI for insufficient fund. Compensation of Rs. 20,000 for deficiencies in service .

Compensation of Rs. 25,000 for physical and mental suffering].

Payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs of proceedings.

A halt to any further debits on her SBI account .

3. The core of the complaint is that the complainant was introduced to one Rajesh, allegedly an agent of the opposite parties, by one Nirmala, and through Rajesh she applied for two consumer loans for home appliances totaling Rs. 58,000 in March 2019.The loan account numbers are 21044887 and 21045458. The complainant claims that the loan amount was fraudulently taken by Sarathy, a friend of Rajesh, who imitated her signatures. The home appliances were allegedly not delivered to her and were instead sold to a third party by the loan agent. Despite this, her personal SBI account was regularly debited Rs. 6,428 as EMI and bank levies penalties for insufficient funds.

4. The complainant further alleged that Sarathy and others cheated around 40 consumers in the Auroville and Pondicherry area and filed a complaint with the Grand Bazar Police Station on 9.05.2019. During the inquiry, Sarathy refunded Rs. 20,000/- to one Ranjit, a collection agent of the opposite party, in the presence of a police officer and a legal advisor of the opposite parties.

5. Despite her police complaint, the complainant received two notices dated 3.10.2019 from an advocate of the opposite parties, demanding payment of outstanding dues of Rs 18,116/- and Rs 28,200/- for the two loan accounts. The complainant then sent a letter dated 28.11.2019 to the DGP of Puducherry, seeking action on her complaint as no progress was made by the police. She has also issued a reply notice on 23.12.2019 to the legal notice, denyi