Haryana

Karnal

CC/542/2020

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Narwal

20 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 542 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt 01.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 20.06.2024

 

Deepak Kumar aged 35 years son of Shri Babu Ram, resident of House no.275-A, ward no.8, Vikram Colony, Taraori, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Bajaj Finance Limited, Mumbai Pune Road, Akrudi, Pune-411035 through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Finance Limited, Ekta Bajaj, opposite Nimantaran Hotel, Meera Ghati Chowk, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: None for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte (vide order dated 18.01.2021)

   

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

               

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments in the year 2019, complainant had gone to Bajaj Motor’s showroom at Meera Ghati, opposite Nimantran Palace, near Namastey Chowk, Karnal to purchase a motorcycle. The complainant had chosen Bajaj Platina 100 ES BS IV motorcycle and deposited the down payment in this regard. An agent of OP contacted the complainant at the spot in the showroom offering loan on the said motorcycle. The loan facility provided to complainant and he will have to pay Rs.75,024/- in installments in a two years and the monthly installment would be Rs.3126/-. Complainant submitted all the documents with the OP including blank signed cheque after which the OP sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant on 08.09.2019 against the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-05BB-8095. Complainant started paying the installments regularly to OP no.2. Complainant went to the office of OP no.2 in the month of August, 2020 and requested to the concerned official to close his account after accepting the remaining amount of the said loan and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.34,720/- for closing his loan account. On 13.08.2020, complainant deposited the entire remaining amount of the said loan and then requested the concerned official to close the loan account. Complainant further requested the OP to return all the documents i.e. cheques etc. related to said loan account but concerned official told him that documents would be returned to him after the issuance of NOC. On 08.09.2020, OP issued NOC in favour of complainant but did not return the documents and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other without any reason. The intention of the OP was malafide and in order to grab more money, the OP no.2 presented the cheque in the banker of complainant and the same was dishonoured. The complainant immediately approached OP no.2 and protested as to why the cheque was presented for encashment when all the installments of the said loan has already been cleared. In this regard on 10.09.2020, the official of OP no.2 apologized in writing.  Even after apologizing, official of OP no.2 again presented another cheque in the bank of complainant on 03.10.2020 for encashment instead of returning the same to the complainant. Complainant again approached the OP no.2 and protested regarding the presentation of the cheque in his banker. OP no.2 asked the complainant to deposit the loan amount and misbehaving with him in the presence of many persons present there inspite of the fact that his loan account was already closed. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.10.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached the OP no.1 and requested for extending financial facility for purchase of a Bajaj make motorcycle (Platina 100 ES BS IV). OP no.1 was ready to extend the financial facility. The loan was sanctioned with an EMI of Rs.3126/- staring from 03.09.2019. The vehicle in question is a security to the said loan and is duly hypothecated to the OP till closure of the loan. The account of the complainant was foreclosed on 04.09.2020 and No Dues Certificate was issued to the complainant. After closure of said loan account, it is specifically denied that OP no.1 has presented any mandate nor has given any instruction to the banker for debit of EMIs or any other amount for the complainant bank. It is further pleaded that the due date of EMI was on 3^rd of respective month and EMI for the month of September, 2020 was in presentation stage when the complainant approached this OP no.1 for foreclosure of the loan account on 04.09.2020 and the loan account was foreclosed on payment of Rs.34,986/-, later the said mandate got bounced stating balance insufficient. OP no.1 has not presented any EMI for clearance or given any instruction for debit from complainant bank after 03.09.2020 as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 18.01.2021 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of  NOC letter Ex.C2, copy of No Objection Certificate Ex.C3, copy of presentation of cheque Ex.C4, copy of bounce cheque memo Ex.C5, copy of cheque bounce message Ex.C6, copy of ECB debit rejection message Ex.C7, copy of letter of apology Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 10.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sachin Verma Ex.OPW1/A, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP1, copy of bounce cheque memo dated 03.09.2020 Ex.OP2, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.OP3, copy of authority letter Ex.OP4, postal receipt Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 09.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Today as well as on previous date of hearing none has appeared on behalf of complainant. The position would remained the same on the adjourned date. The present complaint pertains to the year 2020. The parties have already obtained nine effective opportunities for advancing arguments and thus, there is no justified reason for adjourning the case again for the same purpose. Thus, this Commission is going to decide the present complaint on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties.   

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             As per complaint of complainant, he has purchased a Bajaj Platina 100 ES BS IV motorcycle by taking loan from the OPs and was regularly paying the installments to OPs. On 13.08.2020, the complainant closed his entire loan amount by making payment of Rs.34,720/- but despite closing the loan amount on 13.08.2020, the OP issued the NOC on 08.09.2020 and also presented the cheque which was deposited by the complainant as security which was got dishonored. By doing such act, the OPs has down the repudiation of the complainant in the bank and public at large and in this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP No.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OPs have sanctioned the vehicle loan to the complainant, which was foreclosed by the complainant on 04.09.2020 and No Dues Certificate was issued to the complainant. After closure of said loan account, OP no.1 has presented any mandate nor has given any instruction to the banker for debit of EMIs or any other amount for the complainant bank. The due date of EMI was on 3^rd of respective month and EMI for the month of September, 2020 was in presentation stage when the complainant approached this OP no.1 for foreclosure of the loan account on 04.09.2020 and the loan account was foreclosed on payment of Rs.34,986/-, later the said mandate got bounced stating balance insufficient. OP no.1 has not presented any EMI for clearance or given any instruction for debit from complainant bank after 03.09.2020 as alleged by the complainant, thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           The complainant has obtained vehicle loan from the OPs and he was paying the EMIs regularly and on 13.08.2020, he has paid his entire loan amount but despite that the OPs presented the cheque in the account of complainant which was got bounced due to Insufficient Funds by doing this the complainant has been got harassed and his image was lowered down by the OPs.  To prove his case the complainant has placed on file copy of receipt dated 13.08.2020 Ex.C4, whereby he has deposited the remaining loan amount to the OPs and closed his loan account. The complainant has also placed on file screenshot of the message Ex.C6, wherein it has been intimated to the complainant that EMI of Rs.3126 is bounced on 05.09.2020. The complainant has also placed on file copy of No Objection Certificate dated 08.09.2020 Ex.C3, whereby it is proved that despite making the payment of loan amount on 13.08.2020, the NOC was issued on 08.09.2020. From the screenshot of messages Ex.C5 it is also proved that the OPs also demanded the EMI from the complainant for the month of October 2020, which shows deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

12.           The OP has alleged that due date of EMI was on 3^rd of respective month and EMI for the month of September, 2020 was in presentation stage when the complainant approached OP no.1 for foreclosure of the loan account on 04.09.2020 and the loan account was foreclosed on payment of Rs.34,986/-, later the said mandate got bounced stating balance insufficient. The OP No.1 has failed to prove its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. From the evidence led by the complainant, it is proved that the complainant has cleared his entire loan on 13.08.2020 but despite clearing the loan amount on 13.08.2020, the OP No.1 has presented the cheque for encashment which was got bounced on 05.09.2020 and issued the NOC on 08.09.2020 i.e. after the gap of 25 days from making the payment of loan amount. From 13.08.2020, (the date when the entire loan amount was cleared) to 03.09.2020 (the date of EMI), there was gap of twenty days, which is sufficient time with the OPs to complete all the formalities with regard to clearance of loan of the complainant but despite that OP No.1 presented the cheque of complainant for encashment which was got bounced due to insufficient funds and lowered down the image/reputation of complainant in the bank and public at large. Due to the said act of the OPs, the CIBIL score of the complainant can also be lowered down. Thus, the act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated:20.06.2024

                                                                   President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                                  Member