STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/193/2019 SHRI. BAJRANGILAL S/O BACHAIRAM GUPTA .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. HOUSE NO. 153, WARD NO.38, TUKARAM CHAWL SHRI. RAJESH S/O BAJRANGILAL GUPTA PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. HOUSE NO. 153, WARD NO.38, TUKARAM CHAWL Versus ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER, 5TH FLOOR, AKARSHA BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: ADV. SACHIN GUPTA FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. P.N. KOTHARI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

DATED: 12/12/2025 ORDER (Delivered on 12/12/2025)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member/

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellants/Original Complainants namely Bajrangilal S/o Bachairam Gupta and Rajesh S/o Bajrangilal Gupta, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd. 20/05/2019 in Complaint No. RBT/CC/18/526 passed by learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur (The Forum) under “ ”

section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for the sake of brevity The Act )

2. The learned Additional Forum at Nagpur has dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Act and hence this appeal. The brief facts of the appeal mentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellant as Complainant and present Respondent, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. as Opposite Party for better appreciation)

3. It is the case of Complainant that the complainants are businessmen and are owners of M/s Om Steel Traders and M/s Bajrang Steel Traders. The Opposite Party is a Non-Banking Financial Company and it provides finance for business, housing and other activities. In February 2014, agent of the OP approached the complainants and convinced them to take loan from the OP to expand his business accordingly they applied for loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- They provided all documents to the OP as demanded and after due verification and search of his properties, the OP intimated them about grant of loan against their house. The OP issued Offer Letter dated 27/2/2014. But as there were some discrepancies in the letter they did not accept it. The OP then again issued Offer Letter dated 14/3/2014 with sanctioned amount Rs. 250/- lakhs, which was accepted by them. The OP promised them to disburse loan. After acceptance of Offer Letter by them, they paid processing fees of Rs. 2,75,900/-, documentation charges and stamp duty Rs. 50,000/- by franking the document and also paid Rs. 5000/- for purchasing stamp papers for affidavits. But even after lapse of several days the OP did not disburse the loan amount. Then on 02/04/2014 the OP issued another Offer Letter in which Head of Amount Sanctioned was changed and directed them to sign the same as token of acceptance. However, due callous and unprofessional behaviour of the OP, the complainants did not want to go ahead. They, therefore, sent e-mails to the OP for refund of processing fees and franked documents. The OP informed them that processing fees would not be refunded but franked documents would be returned. They received franked documents. Since their repeated attempts to get back processing fees failed, they issued legal notice to the OP and demanded refund. The OP gave false reply to it. Thus it is alleged, the OP has cheated and played fraud on them and left them high and dry after accepting processing fees. They have, therefore, suffered financially, mentally due to such unprofessional behaviour of the OP Hence, by this complaint they have claimed refund of processing fees Rs. 2,75,900/- with interest expenses incurred for return of franked charges, Notice charges, compensation, total Rs.6,10,224/- from the OP.

4. Notice was served to Opponent. By way of Written Version (W.S.) Adity Birla Finance Ltd., Opposite Party by general denials and defences restricted the claim of