M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 603/2025 A.U. Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Registered Office – Bank House

19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden Ajmer Road Jaipur, Rajasthan Branch Office – HIG 11 In front of Pragati Petrol Pump Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)

Present address – Branch Office III floor, Mepal Highstreet Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

Nemichand Meena S/o Harlal Meena R/o House No. 331, Anand Nagar, Balvihar Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh … Respondent BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI MUKESH DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 22.07.2025 )

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellants/opposite parties-A.U.

Small Finance Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Finance Bank) is directed against the order dated 18.3.2025, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 699/2018, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case, are that for purchasing a Tavera car, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.9 lakhs from opposite parties-Finance Bank. The E.M.I. of loan amount was Rs.22,450/- and the complainant was regularly paying the said E.M.Is. Later when the complainant faced difficulty in making repayment of loan amount, he sold his car to his friend Munna Shukla and when they contacted Manager, Abdul of the Finance Bank in this regard, he informed that if the complainant deposits Rs.7 lakhs within one month NOC will be provided to him. Accordingly, payment of said Rs.7 lakhs was made by Munna Shukla by two cheques bearing Nos. 000059 and 000060 of Baroda Bank for Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh respectively. The amount has also been credited in the loan account on 26.10.2016 and 28.11.2016. However, the NOC, as promised, has not been given by the Finance Bank despite repeated requests/visits by the complainant and Munna Shukla. On 31.7.2018, a legal notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties, when he was telephonically informed that on depositing Rs.590/- NOC will be issued. On 21.8.2018, Rs.590/- was also deposited by the complainant but NOC has not been issued to him by the opposite party. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, on the part of the Finance Bank, the complainant approached the District Commission by filing the instant complaint, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party/Finance Bank resisted the complaint and in the reply before the District Commission submitted that as per condition No.27 of the agreement executed between the parties, all dispute arising relating to agreement shall have jurisdiction of Jaipur Court only by Arbitration. It has been further stated that the complainant was not regular in paying his EMIs and Rs.2,18,888/- was still outstanding against the complainant towards the loan amount. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Finance Bank and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to close the loan account of the complainant showing it as nil and NOC be issued to him within two months from the date of receipt of the order. It has also been directed that within two months from the date of receipt of order vehicle of the complainant repossessed by the Finance Bank be returned to him. Rs.50,000/- has been awarded for financial loss, mental and physical agony with Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/Finance Bank argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commissi