BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, GHAZIABAD
COMPLAINT NO. 213 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

JITENDRA KUMAR DEO COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

THE CEO BYJUS THINK & OPPOSITE PARTY

LEARN PVT. LTD & ORS.

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT NO. 6 - ICICI BANK THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE

I,Shashank Raj, S/o R. Sathyalingam. aged about 34 years, working as Chief

Manager with ICICI bank at NBCC Place, Bhishma Pitahma Marg, Pragati Vihar,
New Delhi-110003, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I depose that Respondent No. 6, ICICI Bank Limited, is a body

corporate incorporated under the Companied Act, 1956 of India and
successfully continuing under the provisions of Companied Act, 2013
having its registered office at ICIC Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle,
Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007 and relevant branch Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh. The present affidavit in evidence is being filed, signed
and verified by Mr. Shashank Raj presently working as Chief Manager
with the Respondent No. 6 at NBCC Place, Bhishma Pitahma Marg,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi-110003 and is duly authorized to represent
the Respondent No. 6.

2. That I depose that the present complaint filed by the Complainant

against the Respondent No. 6 under Section 35 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, falsely alleging deficiency in service on the part
of Opposite Party is based on baseless and erroneous ground and
concealed matter facts. I further depose that Complaint merits
dismissal at the outset for non-joinder of necessary party. I also depose
that the Complainant has arrayed ICIC Bank having its office at ICICI
 Bank Tower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai as party. Whereas as
per the documents annexed with the Complaint by Complainant, the
ICICI Bank Saving Account bearing no. 020501502364 is being
maintained in ICICI bank’s Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, the
registered office of ICIC Bank is in Vadodara, Gujrat. I further deposer
that since no cause of action arouse in favors of Complainant against
ICICI Bank at Mumbai, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed
for non-joinder of correct and necessary party and shall be dismissed at
the outset on this ground along.

3. I depose that the Complainant, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Deo, is holding a

Saving Bank account hearing no. 020501502364 with ICICI Bank,
Jamnagar, Indira Gandi Marg.

4. I depose that the Complainant furnished an e-mandate instruction to

ICICI Bank by authenticating a transaction amount of Rs. 1667 for a
duration of 18 months commencing from 03.11.2022, pursuant to
which the EMI amount of Rs. 1667 began debiting from his saving
account from 03.11.2022. I further depose that, the Complainant failed
to maintain sufficient funds in his savings account from the year 2023,
resulting in the failure of the EMI instruction and the imposition of
bounce charges on the account. I further depose that the Complainant
has concealed this material facts from this Hon’ble Commission that
he failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account by the virtue of
which no EMIs as mandated by him could be debited from the year
2023 onwards till date. I further depose that rather due to insufficiency
of funds bounce charged were levied by the Bank. I depose that it is
admitted position of the Complainant that he never instructed the
ICICI Bank in writing to stop the e-mandate and he served a legal
notice on 15.12.2022 to all Respondents except for the Respondent No.
6. I also depose that such admission teamed with the facts that the
Complainant did not keep sufficient balance in his aforementioned
savings account prove it beyond reasonable doubt that the
Complainant never instructed the ICICI Bank to stop the e-mandate
and rather deliberately maintained low balance so the no EMIs could
be deducted and when Respondent No. 1 to 5 failed to compensate the
Complainant to his satisfaction, the Complainant as a complete
 afterthought has made Respondent Np.6 a party to the present
complaint to extort money. I further depose that all the transaction in
the savings account of Complaint as maintained with the ICICI Bank,
Jamnagar, are reproduced below:

Credit/ Closing
Date Particulars debit Amount Tran id bal

3/11/2 LCFGHXX40136 NOV22 S48932

022 Jitendra Ku DEBIT 1667 953 4112.68

3/12/2 LCFGHXX40136 DEC22 S23890

022 Jitendra Ku DEBIT 1667 87 1246.68

31/01/ LCFGHXX40136_DM_Jit S63004

23 endra Kumar DEBIT 1027 603 0.68

31/03/ LCFGHXX40136_DM_Jit S42047

23 endra Kumar DEBIT 567 763 0.68

LCFGHXX40136-
1/8/20 BOUNCECHGSFEB23G S94008
23 ST DEBIT 36.68 848 0

LCFGHXX40136-
1/8/20 BOUNCECHGSJUN23G S93919
23 ST DEBIT 59 052 36.68

LCFGHXX40136-
1/8/20 BOUNCECHGSAPR23G S93917
23 ST DEBIT 59 013 95.68

LCFGHXX40136-
1/8/20 BOUNCECHGSMAR23G S93907
23 ST DEBIT 59 564 154.68

1/8/20 LCFGHXX40136_BOUN S93906

23 CECHGSMAY23GST DEBIT 59 912 213.68

True Copy of statement of account Complainant reflecting EMIs debits

and bounce charges is marked and exhibited hereto as EXHIBIT: R6/1
(Colly).
5. I depose that all the disputed transaction we authenticated by the
Complainant using an SMS OTP from the Complainant’s registered
mobile number. I also depose that is based on the e-mandate instruction, a
debit of Rs. 1,667/- stating from 03.11.2022 for a duration of 18 months
was establish in the Complainant’s savings account bearing No.
020501502364. I further depose that ICICI bank having its branch at
Jamnagar, adhered to the process of EMI debit based on the e-mandate
served to the Bank as per the Complainant’s own decision to proceed with
the e-mandate. I further depose that it is reiterated that the Complainant
neither approached nor made any verbal/written communication to ICICI
Bank to terminate the payment of the e-mandate.

6. I depose that as admitted by the Complainant he procured an online

tuitions class facility for his son from Respondent No. 1 and for the
payments to be made for the same, gave the e-mandate to State Bank of
India as well as to ICICI bank. I also depose that since the said
transactions with ICICI Bank were authenticated by the Complainant
using an SMS OTP from the Complainant’ s registered mobile number. I
further depose that based on the said e-mandate instruction, a debit of Rs.
1,667/- starting from 03.11.2022 for a duration of 18 months was establish
in the Complainant’s saving account bearing no. 020501502364. I also
depose that ICICI bank having its branch at Jamnagar, adhered to the
process of EMI debit based on the e-mandate served to the Bank as per
the Complainant’s own decision to proceed with the e-mandate. I further
depose that the ICICI Bank was not privy to any such
arrangement/transaction between the Complainant and Respondent No. 1
to 5, the ICICI bank cannot be held liable for any refund. I further depose
that the Respondent No. 1 which shall be held accountable for any refund
of disputed EMI amounts as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

7. I depose that the in the light of the aforementioned facts and averments it
is most respectfully submitted that the Complainant has not approached
this Hon’ble Commission with clean hand and has wilfully concealed the
material facts from this Hon’ble Commission that he failed to maintain
sufficient balance in his account by the virtue of which no EMIs as
mandated by him could be debited from the year 2023 onward till date. I
also depose that rater due to insufficiency of funds bounce charged were
 levied by the Bank. I further depose that the Complainant has deliberately
annexed only summary of account as on 28.12.2022 as Annexure A-21 @
page 77 of his Complainant conceal the fact that he deliberately did not
keep sufficient balance in his aforementioned savings account due to
which no EMI could be deducted since 2023 till date. I further depose that
the admission the part of the Complainant that he never instructed the
ICICI Bank in writing to stop the e-mandate and he served a legal notice
om 15.12.2022 to all Respondent except for Respondent No. 6 prove it
beyond doubt that the Complainant never instructed ICICI Bank to stop
the e-mandate and rather deliberately maintained low balance so that no
EMIs could be deducted and when Respondent No.1 failed to compensate
the Complainant to his satisfaction, the Complainant as a complete
afterthought has made Respondent No. 6 a party to the present complaint
to extort money. I further depose that the present complaint filed under
Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking a refund of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is predicated on entirely
frivolous and erroneous grounds against the Respondent No. 6 and
warrants dismissal qua Respondent No. 6 with exemplary costs.

8. That I depose that the present affidavit has been drafted by my counsel
under by instruction and the contents of the same has been read out to me
and are true to the best of my knowledge and based on the documents
exhibited herein. I further depose that nothing material has been
concealed.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified on this the ________ day of ____________________, 2024 at ______

that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 8 are true and correct and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT