DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing:10/12/2018
CC/166/2018
Thomas.M,
S/o B.Masilamani,
Attapallam,Pampampallam Post, - Complainant
Palakkad- 678 621.
(Party in person)
Vs
1. The Manager
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd
C/o Grand Bajaj
13/426,Opposite Parvathy Mandapam,
Kalmandapam,Palakkad-678 007.
(Exparte)
2. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,
Tharakandam Estate,A Block, - Opposite parties
First Floor,Kurishupally Road,
Ravipuram,Ernamkulam- 682 015
(For 2nd OP By Adv.P.A.Girishkumar)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Brief Facts of the complaint:-
1. The complainant purchased a Bajaj Vikrant 150 CC bike from the Bajaj showroom in Palakkad on 17/09/2016. For that he paid an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.56,560/- he took loan from Bajaj Auto Finance (opposite party). On 21/04/2017 , he made online payment of the balance amount of Rs.49,138/- from SBI and closed the loan. But the Bank had debited an amount of Rs.287.50/- each (RupeesTwo hundred and eighty seven and fifty paise) on the same day through two transactions. The complainant received the NOC letter from Bajaj Auto Finance on 26/04/2017. Even after that an amount Rs.295/- each was debited from his account 5 times on 12/07/2018, 12/08/2018, 13/08/2018. Even though he complained about this to the bank and opposite parties, he did not get any proper reply. The bank officials informed the complainant that on receiving the NOC, the financier has to give ECS clearance to the bank and here the opposite parties had failed to do that and because of that the complainant’s account was debited and it is not because of Bank’s fault. All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and they did not even respond to the mails send by the complainant . Because of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant had a financial loss of Rs.2050/-.
So this complaint is filed for getting that amount and Rs.36,000/- as compensation for time loss, travel expenses,mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by him.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to both opposite parties. Notice to 1st opposite party served, but they did not appear before the Forum and so they were set exparte . 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Contentions raised by 2nd opposite party in their version.
Second opposite party is a Non Banking Finance company registered as Bajaj Finance Ltd and operates its business under the strict supervision of Reserve Bank of India. Opposite party 2 is only a financier in the present transaction and only extended financial assistance to the complainant on request for purchase of a motor cycle and they are not liable for any transaction between the complainant and his bank ie SBI, Kanjikode Branch. The complainant has admitted that 2nd opposite party provided finance facility to the complainant and apart from that they are not responsible for any charges levied by complainant’s Bank. After closing of loan account, this opposite party immediately issued NOC to the complainant on 27/04/2017. This opposite party has not given any instruction to the complainant’s bank for deduction of any amount after closing the loan account. The bank is liable to reply and resolve the complainant’s grievance and is a necessary party to the complaint. Opposite party 2 is not a necessary party to the complaint and for that ground itself, the complaint has to be dismissed.
The 2nd opposite party agreed to extend financial facility to the complainant for Rs.68,952/-(including financial charges of Rs.12,392/-) for 24 months which includes one advance installment remitted by the complainant. As per the loan agreement between the complainant and this opposite party, the contract period was for 24 months from 06/10/2016 to 06/09/2018. The repayment mode opted by the complainant was Auto debit and monthly instalments of Rs.2873/- are to be paid on or before 6th of every month. The vehicle is the security for the loan and it is hypothecated to opposite party 2 till closure of the loan. As on March 2017, the complainant’s loan account was in outstanding dues of Rs.7054/-(Rs.5746/- towards EMI arrears + Rs.1308/- towards other dues) accumulated due to non remittance of monthly installments on its due dates. Even after several follow ups and reminders, the complainant failed to regularize the loan account and 2nd opposite party issued a demand notice on 03/03/2017 and informed the complainant to pay the overdue outstanding amount.
The auto debit mandate for EMI NO 1 to 7 were presented by the opposite party on its due date to the complainant’s bank , out of which 6 EMI mandates were bounced due to reason “Insufficient Funds”. Later on, the complainant remitted all those bounced EMI through cash with opposite party 2. Thus the EMIs received by opposite party 2 were all after due date and due to bounce of EMI, the bounce charges were also levied. On 21/04/2017 the complainant foreclosed his loan account. The bounce charges levied against all dishonoured EMIs. An amount of Rs.2526/- was received by the 2nd opposite party on 17/11/2016, 17/03/2017 and on 21/04/2017 by cash and not through ADM or cheque. As per the agreement, the complaint is duty bound to ensure the payment of EMIs without any default. After receiving the demand notice, inorder to avoid legal action, the complainant approached the opposite party and foreclosed his loan account on 22/04/2017. NOC was issued by the opposite party on 27/04/2017 for release of hypothecation from the subject vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party .
The opposite party has not given instruction to the complainant’s bank for debiting any amount. As per their request, the Bank had explained the reason for these transactions. The complainant’s ADM request dated 06/11/2016, 06/12/2016, 06/01/2017, 06/02/2017, 06/03/2017 and 06/04/2017 were bounced with the reason ‘Insufficient Balance’ and for this the bank has levied Rs.295/-, Rs.287.50/- on various dates. The debit of the amount is to be explained by the bank. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A3 marked from complainant’s side. 2nd Opposite party also filed chief affidavit and documents. But the documents were not marked as there was no representation from the part of 2nd opposite party when it was posted for their evidence. Hence evidence closed and taken for orders.
5. Main points to be considered.
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
4. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
Point 1 :-
6. As per the plaint averment, the complainant approached the opposite party for the financial assistance to purchase a motor cycle. The complainant has opted repayment of loan by way of Auto Debit Mode through his account maintained with state Bank of India, Kanjikode Branch, Palakkad. The complainant’s grievance in this case is against the debits made from his account even after the closure of the loan with the opposite party. The complainant’s bank ie SBI,Kanjikode Branch is the party who can explain the transactions made from his account. The Bank is a necessary party to the complaint and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
Points 2,3&4
7. As per the complaint,the complainant purchased a vehicle from Bajaj showroom by paying an advance amount Rs.30,000/- and for the balance amount he availed loan from the opposite party. He further contended that he closed the loan on 21/04/2017 on payment of the balance amount Rs. 49,138/- from his account maintained with SBI. The opposite party issued NOC on 26/04/2017. His grievance is that on 21/04/2017, the bank debited Rs.287.50/- each through 2 transactions and Rs.295/- each on 12/07/2018, 12/08/2018 and 13/08/2018. The reason for these transactions as understood by the complainant from the bank officials is the non-issuance of ECS clearance by the opposite party to the Bank. So he filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8. The complainant produced 3 documents. Ext A1 is the Bank account statement for the period 22/10/2016 to 22/04/2017. From this it can be seen that there were two transactions of Rs.287.50/- on 21st April 2017(21/04/2017) ie the day on which the loan was closed. The description given on the left shows that these are the “charges recovered -mandate fail transaction dated 04/03/2017 BAJAJ FINANCE and on 09/03/2017”. Similarly the debit of Rs.295/- on 12th July 2018(12/07/2018) is charges recovered mandate fail transaction dated 06/01/2017 BAJAJ FINANCE and the 3 transfers on 12/08/2018 is made as charges recovered mandate fail transaction dated 12/01/2017 on 18/02/2017 and on 04/02/2017. The transaction made on 13th September 2018 is made as charges recovered mandate fail transaction dated 06/04/2017.
The opposite party also submitted that as on April 2017, the auto debit mandate for EMI No.1 to 7 were presented by the opposite party on its due dates to the SBI, out of that 6 EMI mandates were bounced due to the reason”Insufficient Funds”.
9. From Ext A1, it is clear that the debit made from the complainant’s account were the charges recovered by SBI as the bouncing charges against the dishonor of EMI amounts. It cannot be termed as a deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Further if the Bank was made as party to the complaint, they would have given proper explanation. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result ,the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Statement of account of complainant for the period 22/10/2016 to
22/04/2017
Ext.A2 - NOC issued by the opposite party to the RTO dated 26/04/2017.
Ext.A3 - Certificate of registration of the complainant’s vehicle.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost:
NIL
