BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 271 of 2021      

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.10.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:   29.04.2024. 

Sarjeet Singh aged about 38 years son of Shri Jagdish Singh, resident of village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Finance Company Near Lal Gadiya Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

                                                                  ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.           

Present:         Sh. Ashish Vashisht, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a teacher and running a private coaching centre in the name of Chanakya Academy situated at Lal Batti Chowk Dabwali Road, Sirsa. The op is a private finance company and provides loan facility to the needy persons. The complainant is regular customer of the op and used to take the loan from op time to time as per his needs. It is further averred that complainant had taken loan from time to time for purchasing washing machine, air conditioner and RO etc. and all installments of loan were duly and timely paid by the complainant and as such op tried to offer personal loan to the complainant from time to time through calls. It is further averred that complainant started coaching academy and as per many offers of the op the complainant accepted offer of personal loan plan. On 30.06.2019 complainant took a personal loan facility of Rs.1,84,000/- from the op under customer ID 66788515 under product list of PLC Growth Market Plan. It was assured by op’s company that loan approved will be without interest and complainant had to pay only file charges as extra amount and so as per the policy the complainant had to pay Rs.1,99,000/- to the op. That thereafter complainant started paying installments of Rs.7400/- and paid 11 installments amounting to Rs.78,000/- up to May, 2020 but due to Pandemic disease of Covid-19 the coaching academy was closed as per guidelines of Govt., and he was unable to pay the EMIs. It is further averred that RBI issued the guidelines that no company shall charge any interest in case if any debtor or borrower is unable to pay any EMI or installments but the op firm did not follow the guidelines of RBI and bet bounced the cheques of complainant twice or thrice in a month. That due to this reason cibil score of complainant decreased and complainant suffered irreparable loss. That thereafter in July, the op company approached the complainant and switched and converted the loan plan policy of complainant and as per new policy, the outstanding amount to the complainant was Rs.1,91,223/- although Rs.78,000/- were already paid by the complainant and also paid further amount of Rs.1,12,000/- in 22 installments of Rs.5100/- each. It is further averred that thus he has paid total amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the op and as such he has paid almost loan amount but op shown Rs.2,00,000/- outstanding amount till now against the complainant and the act and conduct of the op clearly amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence on account of which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. It is further averred that op also got made necessary calls to the complainant from different numbers and the persons calling him stated that they are from Delhi Police and Police Officer and threatened him. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to op to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary harassment, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as penalty on account of deficiency in service and gross negligence  and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.       On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of true facts, cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had been an existing customer of op who had availed various loans in the past, few of which have been closed and few are active as on date. The details of the loan accounts forming subject matter of the present dispute are given below and the said fact is evident from the statement of accounts attached:-

 4.               It is further submitted that said loan account stands closed as on date with no objection certificate duly issued by op. That complainant had defaulted in the payment of EMI’s for the existing loan. The complainant had failed to honor the EMI’s on the due dates, as a result of which bouncing charges and late payment penalty were levied to his loan account. The entries of the statement of accounts are reproduced herein below for sake of reference:-

5.                It is further submitted that from the above entries, it is crystal clear that the EMI’s for the months of May and June 2020 bounced due to the reason “Insufficient funds” as a result of which bouncing charges and late payment penalty were levied to the account of complainant. The complainant has neither submitted his request to opt the moratorium nor contacted the op, hence the op in good faith granted Suo Moto Moratorium to the complainant at the end of respective month in view of the master circular laid down by the Reserve Bank of India on Covid-19 Regulatory package dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020, as a result of which his EMI for the month of June was rescheduled and additional interest was levied to the account of complainant. It is further submitted that existing loan has been converted into New Loan bearing loan account number 552FGPGB674955 i.e. PLCS Growth Flexi Loan on 08.07.2020.  The purpose of loan conversion is to reduce the financial burden of the complainant by reducing the EMI amount with increase in tenure of the said loan. The complainant had duly consented for conversion of the existing loan into the new loan, which is evident from the details of SMS logs. It is further submitted that complainant had defaulted in the payment of EMI’s for the New loan. The complainant had failed to honor the EMI’s on the due dates, as a result of which bouncing charges and late payment penalty were levied to his loan account. The EMIs for the months of August, 2020, October 2020 to November 2021 bounced due to the reason “Insufficient funds” as a result of which bouncing charges and late payment penalty were levied to the account of complainant as per loan agreement for the existing loan and as on 25.11.2021 the complainant has to pay an overdue amount of Rs.53,949/- to the op in order to regularize his loan account. The op has duly intimated the complainant vide SMS on his registered mobile number to maintain sufficient balance in his bank account before presenting the EMIs on due dates, however despite the said reminders the complainant has failed to maintain sufficient balance in his bank account. It is further submitted that as per scheme announced by the Government of India on 23.10.2020 which mandates ex-gratia payment to borrowers by crediting the difference between compound interest and simple interest for the period between 01.03.2020 and 31.08.2020 in respect to their loan accounts by the respective lending institutions, the op has duly adjusted an amount of Rs.2026/- to the new loan account of complainant on 12.11.2020. It is further submitted that complainant has previously availed various consumer durable loans from op which stands closed as on date except for the loan availed towards purchase of an inverter which loan is yet active in the records of the op. It is further submitted that loan availed by complainant is personal loan having availed at an interest rate of 32.01% p.a. calculated at a reducing balance and hence, complainant is bound to repay not only the principal sanctioned amount but also the interest accrued thereon. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

6.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and statements of account Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

7.       On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg, authorized representative as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.

8.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

9.       From the loan account statement placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1 as well as by op as Ex.R3, it is evident that on 30.06.2019 complainant obtained personal loan of Rs.1,84,000/- from the op under PLC Growth Market plan and as per policy, the complainant had to repay an amount of Rs.1,99,000/- to the op. It is also proved on record from statements of accounts that complainant made default in payment of EMIs i.e. repayment schedule and op also provided Moratorium to the complainant for non payment of EMI in time and thereafter said loan has also been converted into new loan account as per consent of the complainant. The complainant has already been granted Moratorium for the late payment as per RBI guidelines, but however, complainant is again not adhering to the repayment schedule of new loan.  Further, as per scheme announced by the Government of India on 23.10.2020 which mandates ex-gratia payment to borrowers by crediting the difference between compound interest and simple interest for the period between 01.03.2020 and 31.08.2020 in respect to their loan accounts by the respective lending institutions, the op has duly adjusted an amount of Rs.2026/- to the new loan account of complainant on 12.11.2020 as is evident from statement of account. However, complainant  has to repay the new loan amount as per loan agreement and has to pay interest as agreed between the parties and as such complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of op and has also failed to prove his case.

10.     In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member                         President,

Dated: 29.04.2024.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                  Redressal Commission, Sirsa.