IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 76/2020 (Filed on 23/06/2020)
Complainant : Deepu Mathew Joseph,
Vattakunnel House.
Muttambalam P.O,
Kottayam - 686 002.
(By Adv: Akash K.R)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Manager,
Bajaj Finance Limited,
First Floor, Varathapallathu Building,
T.B Road, Kottayam - 686 613.
(By Adv: Jaison Paliyil)
2. The Manager,
IDBI Bank, Thekkekarayan Towers,
Kanjikuzhy, Muttambalam P.O,
Kottayam - 686 004.
(By Adv: Sebi.K.Velamparambil)
O R D E R
SRI.K.M. ANTO, MEMBER
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows. The complainant had availed a personal loan vide Loan account No.451GPLEO731951 for Rs 1,00,000/- from the first opposite party on 29/05/2019. The loan was to be paid in 24 EMIs of Rs.5,980/- on the 2nd day of every month.
The complainant had availed another consumer loan vide Account No.451DPFFC210978 from the first opposite party which should be paid in 9 EMIs of Rs.2,727/- on the 4th day of every month.
The complainant was prompt in repayment and was having a good CIBIL Score. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, there was some uncertainty regarding the payment of instalments. Though the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,730/- towards the consumer loan, the first opposite party did not collect the EMI of the consumer loan on 05/04/2020. Instead of collecting the EMI for the consumer loan, the first opposite party went for collecting the EMI of Rs.5,980/-on 07/04/2020 and thereby caused the complainant an amount of Rs.590/- as charges. On the same day the first opposite party attempted to collect the EMIs and had caused the complainant an amount of Rs.2060.61/- towards charges. On 02/05/2020 the complainant arranged Rs.5,980/- in the account and the first opposite party had collected the EMI of Rs.5,980/- on 02/05/2020.
The complainant had arranged Rs.6,000/- in his account in June for the payment of EMIs, of the personal loan. Instead of withdrawing the EMI amount of Rs.5,980/- on 02/06/2020 the first opposite party had caused the complainant an amount of Rs.3620.61/-. The first opposite party has attempted to collect the instalments against the normal practice and thus caused the complainant an amount of Rs.7,390/- as charges.
The amount of Rs.7,390/- was charged by the second opposite party where the complainant maintains an account vide A/c No.027104000098096. The payment of EMIs to the first opposite party was made through the account with the second opposite party. The first opposite party directly charged an amount of Rs.605/- as bouncing charges for the month of April and an amount of Rs.1,951/- as interest for the moratorium given for one month. The first opposite party directly charged an amount of Rs.454/- as bouncing charges in the month of April and an amount of Rs.163/- as interest for the moratorium given for that month. The first opposite party also charged an amount of Rs.454/- as bouncing charges for the month of May 2020.
The act of the first opposite party in collecting an amount of Rs.3,627/-as bouncing charges and interest for the moratorium period and causing the complainant an amount of Rs.7,390/- to the second opposite party as charges amounts to deficiency in service. The act of the first opposite party in attempting to collect the EMIs several times in a day and collecting excess charges and interest amounts to unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed for getting an order directing the first opposite party to return an amount of Rs.11, 017/- to the complainant, the amount collected by the first opposite party as charges and interest and the amount collected by the second opposite party as charges along with compensation of Rs.25, 000/-.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed separate versions.
The version of the first opposite party is that the complainant had availed two loans.
1. Loan No.451GPLEO731951 for Rs.1,05,000/- on 29/05/2019, having tenure 24 months with EMI Rs.5,980/-
2. Loan No.451DPFFC210978 for Rs.29,990/- on 14/09/2019, having tenure 11 months with EMI Rs.2,727/-.
The complainant provided auto Debit/NACH mandate for direct deduction of EMIs from the bank account maintained with the second opposite party. The complainant has not maintained sufficient balance in the account and hence the Auto debit/NACH mandate presented by the first opposite party for collection of EMIs were returned unpaid by the second opposite party.
1. Loan No. 451GPLEO731951
The EMIs for the month of April and June to October 2020 have bounced due to the reason of insufficient funds. As a result bouncing charges have been levied to the account of the complainant. Due to the default of the complainant suo-motto moratorium was granted to the complainant at the end of respective months in view of the Master Circular of Reserve Bank of India on Covid-19 Regulatory Package dated 27/03/2020 and 23/05/2020. The EMIs for the month of April and June to August 2020 have been rescheduled and the tenure increased to 30 months .Due to the moratorium granted an additional interest of Rs.7,794/- for the months of April and June to August have been levied to the account of the complainant. The bouncing charges of Rs.605/- each for the moratorium period April, June, July and August 2020 have been waived off by the first opposite party.
2. Loan No.451DPFFC210978
The EMIs for the months of April to October 2020 have been bounced due to the reason of insufficient funds and as a result bouncing charges have levied to the account. The first opposite party suo-motto granted moratorium to the complainant at the end of every month and the EMIs for the months April to October have been rescheduled and the tenure of the loan was increased to 16 months. Due to the suo-motto moratorium granted an additional interest of Rs.815/- for the months April to August 2020 have been levied to the loan account. The bouncing charges of Rs.454/- each levied for the moratorium period have been waived off by the first opposite party.
Pursuant to the Master Circular of RBI, the first opposite party had placed a Board Approved Moratorium Policy which permitted the customers to avail the benefit of moratorium by sending a request to the first opposite party. The complainant had duly requested for the moratorium on 02/05/2020, but the request could not be accepted as the cut of date for applying for moratorium was 25/04/2020 or 7 working days from the complainants EMI due date. There after the complainant did not submit the request for moratorium for the period from June to August 2020.
The first opposite party had duly adjusted an amount of Rs.852/- in Loan No.451GPLEO731951 and an amount of Rs.9/- towards the Loan No. 451DPFFC210978 as ex-gratia payment as per the scheme announced by Government of India on 23/10/2020. The first opposite party had acted in good faith protecting the interest of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any refund of money or compensation as claimed by the complainant.
The version of the second opposite party is that the complainant had issued direct mandate in favour of the first opposite party for his account with the second opposite party. The direct debit mandate has been cancelled by the complainant only in September 2020. Since there was no sufficient balance in the account, charges have been debited as per rules. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A3. First opposite party marked documents Exhibits B1 to B5. The second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked document Exhibit B6. The complainant was examined as PW1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
1 Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2 If so what are the reliefs and costs?
POINT 1 & 2 :-
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced, it is evident that the complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.1,05,000/- on 29/05/2019 and a consumer loan of Rs.29,990/- on 14/09/2019/- from the first opposite party. The EMIs were collected by the second opposite party using the Auto debit/NACH mandate from the account of the complainant maintained with the second opposite party. The complainant had remitted the EMIs of the two loans without default up to the month of March 2020.
Ext A1 is the Loan financial summary of the personal loan as on 02/06/2020. Ext.A2 is the Loan financial summary of the consumer loan as on 02/06/2020. Ext.A3 is the Bank account statement of the account No.027104000098096 of the complainant maintained with the second opposite party on 02/06/2020. Ext. A3 shows that an amount of Rs.3620.61 was charged by the second opposite party as cheque return charges.
Ext B2 is the Loan account statement of the Loan No.451GPLEO731951. Ext.B3 is the Loan account statement of the Loan No.451DPFFC210978.
PW1 had deposed that “ tamdt«m-dnbw 2 tem-Wn-\p-ambn apply sNbvXp. 2020 sabv, Pp¬ amk-§-fnembn charges Head -  7000/þ cq]-tbmfw t]m-bn. 2020 Pp¬ amkw 6000/þcq] Rm³ EMI IW-¡n-en-«Xv A¡u-n ss]k CÃm-¯-Xp-aqew charges Bbn t]m-bn. (Q) tam-d-t«m-dnb¯nsâ B\p-Iqeyw In«n-bn-à F¦n 2020 G{]n amk-t¯bpw sabv amk-t¯bpw Hmt«m-sU_n-än-sâ dishonour charge ^n\m³kv Iw]\n CuSm¡n FSp-¡p-¶-Xn Bt£]w CÃtÃm ? (A) tamdt«m-dnbw request sIm-Sp-¯n-cp-¶p. Rm³ Xnc¡m-\mbn Hm^o-kn sN¶ncp-¶p. At¸mÄ AhÀ lcmkv sNbvXp At¸m-gmWv tIkv sImSp¯Xv. (Q) 2020 Pq¬ amkw charges Bbn 6000/þ cq]-tbmfw IqSp-X hm§n-btà ? (A) AsX. (Q) Cu Bdm-bncw(6000) cq] GsXms¡ Head - BsW¶v ]d-bm³ km[n-¡p-tam (A) 2020 Pq¬ amkw cheque bouncing charges Bbn G{]n apX Pq¬ hsc 2 tem-Wn-ep-ambn ‘auto debit’ kwhn-[m-\-¯n 10 {]mh-iy-t¯mfw present sNbvX-Xnsâ dishonour charge BWv 6000 cq]. (Q)BbXv BWv Cu tIkv sIm-Sp-¡m³ B[m-c-amb ImcWw F¶v ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-bp-¶p.(A) AsX.
The complainant had applied for Covid moratorium on 2 May, 2020 but opposite party rejected the request that for the complainant had to apply before 25/05/2020 or 7 days before the EMI due date. This condition is against the order of the RBI Circular. The first opposite party failed to offer Covid moratorium to the complainant from May 2020, there by the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.3620.61 as charges to the second opposite party. The act on the part of the first opposite party unwarrantly attempting to collect the EMIs by not providing the benefit of moratorium in June 2020 and thereby causing charges to the second opposite party is deficiency in their service.
Even though the complainant claimed the refund of cheque bouncing charges and interest for the moratorium period it is evident that the first opposite party had reimbursed the check bouncing charges due to them in the moratorium period. The opposite party is entitled to realize the interest for the moratorium period. More over an amount of Rs.852/- in the personal loan and Rs.9/- in the consumer loan were adjusted in the loan accounts as ex-gratia payment by the first opposite party.
On the basis of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
(1) The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,620/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) to the complainant with 9% interest from 02/06/2020.
(2) The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only).
The first opposite party is further restrained from charging any interest or penal charges to the two loans for the period from the date of filing of this complaint to the date of order. The order shall be complied within 30 dates from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of July, 2023
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of the Complainant:
PW1 - Deepu Mathew
Witness from the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibit from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Loan financial summary of the personal loan as on 02/06/2020
A2 - Copy of Loan financial summary of the consumer loan as on 02/06/2020
A3 - Copy of statement of Account dated 02/06/2020 with vide
No. 02710400009806 maintained with the second opposite party bank
Exhibit from the side of Opposite parties :
B1 - Copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation issued from the
Registrar of Companies, Maharashta, Pune
B2 - Loan account statement of the Loan No.451GPLEO731951
as on 25/11/2020
B3 - Loan account statement of the Loan No.451DPFFC210978
as on 25/11/2020
B4 - Copy of Master Terms & Conditions applicable to loans & EMI cards
B5 - Copy of PLCS Agreement
B6 - Attested copy of letter dated 24/09/2020 of the complainant
for cancelling the direct debit mandate
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
