BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL

AREA, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI

CC NO.17/2024

IN THE MATTER OF

TUSHAR ANAND ...Complainant

VERSUS

DHANI LOANS AND SERVICES LTD &ANR ...Opposite Party

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF

OPPOSITE PARTY

I, Sushil Singh, AR of Respondent Company, office at 1/1E, 1 st Floor,

East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-

1. I state that Mr. Sushil Singh is the authorised Representative (AR)

of the Respondent Company and also has been authorised,
empowered, and competent to institute the present evidence on
behalf of the respondent to sign and verify the pleading and to
engage the counsel for and on behalf of the Respondent, to
represent it in the court, Tribunal, Commission etc., vide Authority
letter dated 24.03.2023 is Exhibit-DW-1/2 Mr. Sushil Singh is
aware of the facts of the case based on official records kept in the
Respondent Company. The true copy of the Authority Letter in
 favour of Mr. Sushil Singh AR of the Respondent Company dated
24.03.2023 is being appended here with Exhibit-DW-1/3. A true
copy of the Board Resolution in Favour of Vikash Sachdeva,
Authorised Representative of the Respondent Company is here
with Exhibit-DW-1/4.
2. I stated that Tushar Anand and Sheetal Anand approached the
answering Respondent for availing a Mortgage loan against a
property for a sum of ₹ 1,87,00,000/- (One Crore Eighty Seven
Lacs Rupees Only ). That on completion of the loan Period, the
Respondent Company issued an NOC to the complainant and the
said loan was closed. Copy of the statement of account of the
complainant duly maintained by the respondent is here with
Exhibit-DW-1/5.Certificate of the AR of the respondent under
section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 is here with
Exhibit-DW-1/6.
3. I state that That the Complainants, through various modes,
requested to the Respondent Company to settle down the loan by
giving waiver under various heads. That as per the requests
received by the respondents from the complainants, and also by
looking at the financial status of the complainants, the Respondent
Company decided to close the mortgage loan extended to the
complainant as “full and final settlement towards foreclosure of
the loan account no. HILALAJ00457662”. It is noteworthy to
mention that since the above said mortgage loan was settled by the
complainant by availing various waivers under different heads such
as Future POS waiver, waiver on CBCLPP charges, waiver on
foreclosure charges, the loan account can only be termed as settled
 and hence the said letter of “full and final settlement towards
foreclosure of the loan account no. HILALAJ00457662” was
issued to the complainant by hand dated 22.02.2022 which also
bears the signatures of the complainant as a mark of acceptance.
The copy of the “full and final settlement towards foreclosure of
the loan account no. HILALAJ00457662” dated 22.02.2022 issued
by the respondents and duly accepted by the complainant herein is
Exhibit-DW-1/7.
4. I state that since the complainant’s loan account was settled with
the answering Respondent by giving various waivers mentioned in
the previous para, as per the RBI guidelines, the respondent
company is liable to communicate the said settlement to the CIBIL
regarding the foreclosure of the loan account. It is submitted that
the respondent company cannot conceal the said mode of
foreclosure of the loan account to the CIBIL and hence the
respondents act towards the CIBIL is justified under the eyes of
law.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
A. At the very outset, the respondent company denies each and every
averment made in the complaint under the reply except those which
are matters of record and which are specifically admitted. It is
further stated that it is unfortunate that the complainant has not
come before the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. It is stated that
the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble
Forum.
B. That the Respondent Company is a Non- Banking Financial
Company (NBFC) duly registered and incorporated under ‘The
 Companies Act, 1956’ and having its registered office at 1/1E, 1st
Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
C. That the Respondent Company is engaged in the business of
disbursement of various types of loans and thus receives various
loan applications during normal course of business.
D. That having regard to the averments in the present complaint, no
ground whatsoever is made out against the Respondent Company
under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for preferring the present
complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
E. That Complainant does not come within the definition of Consumer
as defined under the said Act. It is further submitted that the
complainant themselves state at para no.1 of their complaint that
they are the directors of Alaknanda Vaults Private Limited at the
mentioned address of the complainant in their memo of parties. It is
further stated that as per clause 7 of section 2 of the Consumer
Protection Act 2019,
“(7) "Consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a
consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys
such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when
such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not
include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose; or.
It is submitted that the complainant has nowhere mentioned in their
entire complaint that they are the consumers of the respondent
 company. Rather, they had mentioned that they are the directors of
a company called Alaknanda Vaults Private Limited.
F. That complainant has failed to mention in their entire complaint for
what purpose the said mortgage loan was availed by them from the
respondent company.
G. That since the subject matter of the alleged cause raised by the
Complainant does not fall under the provisions of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, the Hon’ble Commission does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
H. That as per the nature of the transaction between the Complainant
and the answering Respondent, the answering Respondent has
already issued an NOC to the Complainant while issuing copy of
the “full and final settlement towards foreclosure of the loan
account no. HILALAJ00457662” dated 22.02.2022 issued by the
respondents and duly accepted by the complainant hence, the
answering Respondent cannot be put into the ambit of the
deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as per the Consumer
Protection Act.
I. That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. It is submitted that the
complainant has failed to implead ICICI bank or CIBIL (Trans
Union CIBIL Limited/ Credit Information Bureau India Limited) in
the array of parties before the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that as
per the averments of the complaint before the Hon’ble Court, the
complainant’s grievance is against ICICI bank which had denied
educational loan to the complainant’s daughter for the reasons
mentioned at page no.16 of the complainant’s paper book. It is
 submitted that as per the said Gmail copy filed by the complainant
for rejection of his educational loan facility dated 08.12.2023, four
below points had been mentioned in the said mail by the ICICI
Bank:
1. Eligibility criteria of ICICI bank
2. Viability of proposed purpose of the credit facility
3. Past borrowings of the applicants/ co-applicants(s)
4. Regulatory and statutory provisions governing ICICI Bank
It is important to note that the Respondent's acts or omissions with
the complainant are not covered by any of the rejection points
listed in the email dated 08.12.2023 issued by ICICI Bank.
It is also important to note that the complaint suffers from
Non-Joinder of parties, as the complainant failed to include CIBIL
(Trans Union CIBIL Limited/Credit Information Bureau India
Limited) in their array of parties filed before the Hon'ble Court.
Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Respondent Company
does not have any controlling stake in CIBIL (Trans Union CIBIL
Limited/ Credit Information Bureau India Limited) and operates
independently, as both entities work in entirely different domains.
J. That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost since
the Hon’ble Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction
to adjudicate the matter in hand. It is submitted that the mortgage
loan amount in the present matter is ₹1,87,00,000/- (One Crore
Eighty Seven Lacs Rupees only) which is also the consideration
amount. It is submitted that Section 34 of the Consumer Protection
Act 2019 reads as under:
 34. Jurisdiction of District Commission. (1) Subject to the other
provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have
jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or
services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:

K. That present complaint has been preferred against Respondent

without any cause of action and without any averments regarding
any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a view to
unnecessarily harassing the Opposite party. The present complaint
is liable to be dismissed with costs.
L. That the present complaint filed by the complainant is not
supported with certificate under section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam 2023 and hence digital records filed by the complainant
may not be read as part and parcel of the complaint filed by the
complainant.
PARAWISE REPLY:-
1. That the contents of Para No. 1 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are not related with the answering respondent. It is
submitted that the complainants themselves mentioned in the
complaint that they are the directors of Alaknanda Vaults Private
Limited as directors and hence the complaint filed by the
complainant is not maintainable since they cannot be treated as
consumers for the sake of maintainability of the present complaint.
2. That the contents of Para No. 2 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are partially wrong and denied and partially accepted.
However it is a matter of record that the respondent company is an
NBFC registered with RBI and is engaged into the business of
finances.
3. That the contents of Para No. 3 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and hence denied except what is matter of
record. However, it is submitted that the Complainant’s availing
loan from Respondents is for commercial purpose and not for
personal use. It is further to submit that the complainants may be
put to file their account statement regarding the expenditure of the
said loan amount.
4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are matter of record and hence needs no reply. It is
further to submit that the answering Respondent still reiterates the
contents of letter of NOC issued to the complainant regarding the
said loan facility.
5. That the contents of Para No. 5 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and denied. It is denied that complainants
were astonished and surprised when they approached ICICI Bank
for grant of education loan for their daughter for higher studies
abroad wherein a very bad impact had been reflected in the CIBIL
score of the complainants, since the respondents on the one hand
have issued a certificate of loan repaid in full and on the other hand
stated that credit facility status stands settled with settlement
amount of ₹50,789/- which is totally illegal, arbitrary,
unprofessional and unethical on the part of respondents. It is further
wrong that the same has resulted into adverse and negative impact
on the complainant’s future prospects in getting loan from his/ her
daughter’s future education purpose and the Respondents ought to
have taken due care and caution in this regard which was not done
in the instant case, reasons best known to the Respondents. It is
 submitted that the Respondent Company did its level best in the
interest of complainant in the above said mortgage loan account of
the complainant when the Respondent Company issued NOC in
favor of the complainant by waiving off the foreclosure charges for
a sum of ₹2,43,290.17/- as well as Future POS waiver for a sum of
₹50,789.02/-.
6. That the contents of Para no.6 of the Complaint are matter of record
and hence needs no reply.
7. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the Complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is wrong and hence
denied that the entire amount including accrued interest worth
₹2,72,23,121/- as mentioned in the last CIBIL report with control
no. 6,83,60,10,308( Tushar Anand) and control no.
₹6,85,16,21,263/- (Sheetal Anand) dated 04.12.2023 and
07.12.2023 respectively and the respondents have intentionally and
deliberately showed credit facility status settled but have mentioned
settlement for ₹50,789/- which had seriously affected the CIBIL
score of the complainants and hence the Respondents have
indulged in unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in services. It
is submitted that since no document pertaining to the averment of
affected CIBIL score has been filed by the complainants before the
Hon’ble Commission, the same is denied. It is further to submit
that CIBIL has not been impleaded in the array of parties before the
Hon’ble Court and hence the present respondents cannot be
constrained to admit the averments made in the present para and
hence the same is denied. Contents of preliminary objections in the
 present reply may be read as part and parcel of the present para
which has not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. That the Contents of Para No. 8 of the Complaint are wrong and
hence denied. It is wrong and therefore denied that the
complainants feel cheated and deceived due to the above-said act
and conduct of the Respondents as a result of which the
complainants now have to approach some other private bank for the
disbursal of the same loan amount on a much higher rate of interest
for no fault on the part of the complaints. It is pertinent to mention
that the complainants' own rejection letter from ICICI Bank dated
08.12.2023 cites reasons for the educational loan denial that cannot
be attributed to the Respondent Company. Consequently, the
Respondent Company should not be held responsible for the loan's
rejection. Contents of preliminary objections in the present reply
may be read as part and parcel of the present para which has not
been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9. That the contents of Para No.9 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and hence denied. It is wrong and hence
denied that the acts and conduct of the respondents have caused
great mental pain, agony, harassment and financial loss to the
complainants and respondents are liable to compensate the
complainants accordingly. It is submitted that the respondents
herein cannot be held liable for any mental pain, agony, harassment
or financial loss. It is submitted that the respondents, after the
closure of loan account, promptly issued NOC to the complainants.
That contents of preliminary objections in the present reply may be
 read as part and parcel of the present para which has not been
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
10. That the contents of para no. 10 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is denied that due to
such deficient services, the complainants have suffered mental
agony and harassment, as the Respondents are liable to pay
damages on account of mental agony. It is submitted that the
Respondents, after the closure of the loan account, promptly issued
NOC to the complainants. It is submitted that contents of
preliminary objections in the present reply may be read as part and
parcel of the present para which has not been repeated herein for
the sake of brevity.
11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is denied that the
cause of action first arose when the complainants approached the
Respondent for mortgage loan of ₹1,87,00,000/- (One Crore Eighty
Seven Lacs Rupees only) for a property which was kept as security
for the repayment of the loan amount. It is further wrong and
denied that on 02.08.2018 when the respondents granted an ILAP-
IBCFL of ₹1,87,00,000/- wide loan account number
HILALAJ00457662 to the complainants for the property bearing
number DDA flat number 126, SF&TF (Duplex) Anupam
Apartment, CAT-III, Saket Lot-II, New Delhi 110017. It is further
wrong and denied that any cause of action arose on 26.04.2022
when complainants repaid the entire mortgage loan with its accrued
interest amounting to the respondents. It is further wrong and
denied that any cause of action arose on 08.12.2022 when the
 complainants were denied educational loan application number
APPL 00202837 and APPL00203419 dated 17.11.2023 and
20.11.2023 by ICICI Bank for ₹70 Lakhs for their daughters higher
studies. It is further wrong and denied that on 14.12.2023, when the
complainant, through their counsel, served a legal notice to the
Respondents at their given address and the said legal notice was
duly served upon them as per the speed post tracking reports and
the cause of action is hence continuing till date. It is submitted that
no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and
against the answering Respondents since the NOC against the said
mortgage loan was already handed over to the complainants. It is
submitted that contents of preliminary objections in the present
reply may be read as part and parcel of the present para which has
not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
12. The contents of Para No. 12 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are matter of record and hence neither admitted nor
denied and the complainant may be put to the strict proof of same.
13. That the contents of para No. 13 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is denied that the
complainants have filed the present claim under limitation as per
the Limitation Act. It is submitted that the contents of the para in
question are matter of record and hence needs no reply.
14. That contents of the number 14 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is denied that the
Hon’ble Commission has both pecuniary as well as territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain and decide the present complaint
since the relief sought for the complainant falls under the pecuniary
 jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission and moreover the
complainant is resident of Sudbury, Chattarpur, New Delhi which
falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.
It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the
Complainant in which the consideration amount involved is
₹1,87,00,000/- (One Crore Eighty Seven Lacs Rupees only) which
is much beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The contents
of preliminary objections raised by the respondents here in maybe
red as part and parcel of the present reply and the same has not
been repeated here in for the sake of brevity. It is further to submit
that as per section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission is up to the
extent of ₹1,00,00,000/-. Since the consideration amount in the
present case is much beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Commission, hence this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present matter.
15. The contents of para No.15 of the complaint filed by the
complainant are wrong and therefore denied. It is denied that
complainants have paid the requisite court fees in the shape of
Indian postal order as per the law applicable. The contents of
preliminary Objections may be read as part and parcel of the
present reply which has not been repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.
Last para, being the prayer clause of the complaint from para
no. “a”, “b”, “c” and “d” and any other relief or further relief
prayed by the complainant deserves outright dismissal as per the
 present true and correct facts substantiated with material documents
filed by the respondent herein.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission

may be pleased to:
1. Pass an order, thereby dismissing the complaint in favour of the
Respondent/ OP and against the complainants; and
2. Pass an order thereby directing the complainant to pay the cost
of the present proceedings in favour of Respondent and against
the complainant; and/or
3. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Forum may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AR of the Respondent Company

5.
6. I state that the decree of divorced dt. 16.10.2015 was passed on the
grounds of cruelty without fixing the permanent alimony of the
applicant.
7. I state that the present applicant has no independent source of
income for her survival and livelihood.
8. I state that vide order dt 09.05.2012, the Ld. MM, Monika
Saroha, Mahila Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had directed
the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2600/- per month in the
account of applicant by the 10th of every month, assessing the
respondent to be a semi -skilled worker earning approx. 7500/-
per month, late in the year 2012.
9. I state that in the month of January 2017 the present applicant
had filed and execution petition number 5/9/2017 before this
Hon’Able court against the respondent / judgement debtor as the
respondent fails to obey and comply with the directions of the
learned mm Monica Saroha Mahila Court Kakarduma Court
Delhi wide order dated 95 2012 to pay a sum of rupees 2600 per
month in the account of applicant by the 10th of every month as
interim maintenance. The order dated 9 may 2012 of learned
mm Monika Saroha, Mahila Court, Karkardooma, Delhi was
declared to be affective from the date of the maintenance
petition that is dated 18 December 2009.
10.I state that the respondent had wilfully not paid even a single
penny to the present applicant since 1 October 2014 till date
despite of the street directions of learned mm Monica Saroha,
Mahila Court, Kakardooma Delhi wide order date and 9/5/2012
full stop the respondent is wilfully obeying in avoiding the
compliance of the order dated 9 may 2012 against which the
applicant had already file and execution petition number
59/2017 before the concerned Court.
11.I sate that the present applicant is having no source of income of
her own and is leading a miserable life without the adequate and
substance source of livelihood. Therefore, the applicant prays
before this Hon’ble court to grant the permanent aluminium
rupees 15,00,000 (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only/-) against the
respondent for the maintenance of the applicant.
12.The relevant documents, being part and parcel of my
evidence/affidavit and being relied upon by me are as under:-
 Exhibit WW-1/1: Copy of decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty vide judgement & decree
dt. 16.10.2015.
I state that it is my true and correct statement of facts.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this ………. Day of May, 2022 that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEP
ONENT