DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/113/2020

Date of Institution : 13.07.2020

Date of Decision : 12.07.2023

Ranjodh Singh aged about 45 years son of Sh. Shankar Singh resident of H.No. 285, Janda wala road, Satsangh Gali, Barnala, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala, Punjab.                                           …Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Finance Limited, (Bajaj Finserv), Ist floor building Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala, Punjab-Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory. 

2. Central Bank of India, Old Cinema Road, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala, Punjab-Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory. 

                …Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Munish Kumar Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Ranjodh Singh filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Bajaj Finance Limited and others (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite party No. 1 running its business of finance and providing various types of loans facilities to the customers and the opposite party No. 2 is running its business of banking and providing bank accounts & other facilities to their customers. It is alleged that the complainant availed three loans from the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant has one saving account bearing No. 3380144946 with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant loan account No. 6R80CDFR915169 for Rs. 19,000/- and second loan account No. 6R8ECFFU443303 for Rs. 22,990/- and third loan No. 6R8GPL101309056 for Rs. 40,000/- are lying with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has regularly paid three installments in every month against his three loans from the date of advancement of the loans. It is further alleged that in the month of March 2020 Indian Government announced lockdown due to the Corona Virus and keeping in mind the typical period or tough situation, Reserve Bank of India issued notification in the month of March 2020 vide notification number RBI/2019/2020/186 DOR No. BP.BC47/21.04.048/2019-20 in which it is said by the RBI that in respect of all term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans), all commercial banks (including regional rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), co-operative banks, all-India Financial Institutions, and NBFCs (including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all installments falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020. The repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board by three months after the moratorium period. Interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period. That installments will include the following payments falling due from March 1, 2020 to May 31 2020 (i) principal and/or interest components; (ii) bullet repayments; (iii) Equated Monthly installments; (iv) credit card. On May 23, 2020 Reserve Bank of India again issued one notification bearing No. RBI/2019-20/244/ DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.4.048/2019-20 in which again RBI increased the moratorium period. 

3. It is further alleged that from the month of April 2020 to June 2020, the opposite parties in spite of RBI guidelines deducted an amount of Rs. 5,015/- vide 17 transactions each of Rs. 295/- and when complainant inquired about the matter, the opposite party No. 1 said that the deducted amount is fault of the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 said it is on the part of opposite party No. 1 because the opposite party No. 1 presented the monthly EMI and due to the insufficient fund said EMI got bounce and opposite party No. 2 has deducted the DDM bounce charges. Moreover, on 28.5.2020 in one day the opposite party No. 1 presented the EMI 12 times and for each bounces Rs. 295/- was deducted by the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 issued three letters dated 22.6.2020 by mentioning that the charges debited in your bank account with the opposite party No. 2 is towards the EMIs payment for your loan accounts due to insufficient funds. The opposite parties committed default for deduction of the Rs. 5,015/- in spite of RBI guidelines. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties, but all in vain. The above said act of the opposite parties is a deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,015/- illegally deducted alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction. . 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complaint is defective, baseless and devoid of merits, complaint is not maintainable etc. It is further alleged in preliminary objections that the complainant has taken loans from the opposite party, as such the relationship between complainant and the opposite party is debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider, hence this  Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No. 1. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had availed various loans from the opposite party No. 1 and few of which are closed and few are active as on date. The complainant taken three loans i.e. loan account No. 6R80CDFR915169 for Rs. 19,000/-, loan account No. 6R8ECFFU443303 for Rs. 22,990/- and loan account No. 6R8GPL101309056 for Rs. 40,000/- and the same are active. It is further submitted that in order to make timely repayment of the EMIs for above mentioned loans, the complainant provided Auto Debit/NACH mandate for direct deduction of EMIs from his bank account. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 has presented the Auto Debit/NACH mandate for clearance of the EMIs balance in his bank account, hence Auto Debit/NACH mandate presented by opposite party No. 1 for collection of EMIs were returned unpaid by the complainant's banker as a result of which bouncing charges have been levied in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant had been a defaulter and non honoring his EMIs as per the due dates i.e. 2nd day of every month for the above mentioned loan account numbers which have been bounced due to the reason “insufficient funds” as the complainant had failed to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account and hence bouncing charges levied to the account of the complainant. It is further submitted that it is a common practice that if any customer is not maintaining sufficient balance in the account then the said customer has to pay the bouncing charges to his bank where the customer maintain saving bank account. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 1 can only present the NACH/Auto Debit mandate for clearance and it is up to the banker either to honor the said EMI basis the balance available in respective customer's bank account. It is further submitted that in case the Borrower wishes to avail the benefit of the said moratorium, he/she can place a request for moratorium on the opposite parties customer portal or send email to the opposite party. The opposite party No. 1 submitted that in the instant case the complainant had not requested for moratorium rather it is the opposite party, which is in good faith had granted Suo-Moto Moratorium to the complainant for all the loans accounts. The opposite party No. 1 further submitted that they duly replied to the issues of the complainant vide its letter dated 22.6.2020 annexed with the complaint, wherein the opposite party No. 1 duly informed to the complainant that the excess deductions are the charges levied by the complainant's banker and not the answering opposite party due to the EMI's not being honored as per the due dates. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

6. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds complainant has not come in the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands, complaint is mis-conceived, frivolous, vexatious and unsustainable in the law etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant availed three loans from the opposite party No. 1 and the complaint is not related with the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that as per the notification of Govt. of India, if any person ready to deposit installments as interest or principal, then the institution cannot refused to accept his amount of installment or interest. The answering opposite party deducted the amount from the account of the complainant on the request submitted by the complainant through the opposite party No. 1. The demand which was made by the opposite party No. 1 from the opposite party No. 2 not fulfill as the sufficient balance is not available in the account of the complainant and answering opposite party deducted the amount from the account of the complainant as per the instructions of the RBI and Bank instructions. The answering opposite party charged the expenses as per the instructions of the Bank and RBI. The employees of the opposite party No. 2 duly satisfied the complainant about the charges and the computerized system of the Bank automatically deducted charges on account of failure of honor EMI from the account of the complainant. It is further submitted that no written complaint was received by the answering opposite party from the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. 

7. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copies of notifications are Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copies of letters dated 22.6.2020 Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. The complainant also filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence copies of statement of account are Ex.O.P1/1 to Ex.O.P1/3, copy of terms and conditions are Ex.O.P1/4, copy of agreement Ex.O.P1/5, copy of terms and conditions Ex.O.P1/6 and closed the evidence. 

9. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Ajay Kumar Ex.O.P2/1, copy of detail of account Ex.O.P2/2, copy of voucher Ex.O.P2/3, copy of statement of account Ex.O.P2/4 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the parties. 

11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant availed three loans from the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant has one saving account bearing No. 3380144946 with the opposite party No. 2 (Ex.C-2). It is further argued that the complainant loan account No. 6R80CDFR915169 for Rs. 19,000/- and second loan account No. 6R8ECFFU443303 for Rs. 22,990/- and third loan No. 6R8GPL101309056 for Rs. 40,000/- are lying with the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant has regularly paid three installments in every month against his three loans from the date of advancement of the loans. It is further argued that in the month of March 2020 Indian Government announced lockdown due to the Corona Virus and keeping in mind the typical period or tough situation, Reserve Bank of India issued notification in the month of March 2020 vide notification number RBI/2019/2020/186 DOR No. BP.BC47/21.04.048/2019-20 (Ex.C-3) in which it is said by the RBI that in respect of all term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans), all commercial banks (including regional rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), co-operative banks, all-India Financial Institutions, and NBFCs (including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all installments falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 and the repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board by three months after the moratorium period but the interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period. It is also argued that installments will include the following payments falling due from March 1, 2020 to May 31 2020 (i) principal and/or interest components; (ii) bullet repayments; (iii) Equated Monthly installments; (iv) credit card. It is further argued that on May 23, 2020 Reserve Bank of India again issued one notification bearing No. RBI/2019-20/244/ DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.4.048/2019-20 (Ex.C-4) in which again RBI increased the moratorium period. Ld Counsel for the complainant also argued that from the month of April 2020 to June 2020, the opposite parties in spite of RBI guidelines deducted an amount of Rs. 5,015/- vide 17 transactions each of Rs. 295/- and when complainant inquired about the matter, the opposite party No. 1 said that the deducted amount is fault of the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 said it is on the part of opposite party No. 1 because the opposite party No. 1 presented the monthly EMI and due to the insufficient fund said EMI got bounce and opposite party No. 2 has deducted the DDM bounce charges. It is also argued that on 28.5.2020 in one day the opposite party No. 1 presented the EMI 12 times and for each bounces Rs. 295/- was deducted by the opposite parties which is cleared from Ex.O.Ps-2/4.  It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 issued three letters of dated 22.6.2020 (Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7) by mentioning that the charges debited in your bank account with the opposite party No. 2 is towards the EMIs payment for your loan accounts due to insufficient funds. It is also argued that the complainant made repeated requests to refund the amount of Rs. 5,015/- alongwith interest from the date of deduction, but the opposite parties did not hear the complainant, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

12. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that the complainant has taken loans from the opposite party No. 1, as such the relationship between complainant and the opposite party is debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider, hence this  Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No. 1. It is further argued that the complainant taken three loans i.e. loan account No. 6R80CDFR915169 for Rs. 19,000/-, loan account No. 6R8ECFFU443303 for Rs. 22,990/- and loan account No. 6R8GPL101309056 for Rs. 40,000/- and the same are active (Ex.O.Ps-1/1 to Ex.O.Ps-1/3). It is further argued that in order to make timely repayment of the EMIs for above mentioned loans, the complainant provided Auto Debit/NACH mandate for direct deduction of EMIs from his bank account and the opposite party No. 1 has presented the Auto Debit/NACH mandate for clearance of the EMIs balance in his bank account, but the Auto Debit/NACH mandate presented by opposite party No. 1 for collection of EMIs were returned unpaid by the complainant's banker as a result of which bouncing charges have been levied in the loan account of the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant had been a defaulter and non honoring his EMIs as per the due dates i.e. 2nd day of every month for the above mentioned loan account numbers which have been bounced due to the reason “insufficient funds” as the complainant had failed to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account and the bouncing charges levied to the account of the complainant. It is also argued that it is a common practice that if any customer is not maintaining sufficient balance in the account then the said customer has to pay the bouncing charges to his bank where the customer maintain saving bank account. It is further argued that in case the Borrower wishes to avail the benefit of the said moratorium, he/she can place a request for moratorium on the opposite parties customer portal or send email to the opposite party No. 1 but the complainant had not requested for moratorium, rather it is the opposite party No. 1 which is in good faith had granted Suo-Moto Moratorium to the complainant for all the loans accounts. The opposite party No. 1 further argued that they duly replied to the issues of the complainant vide its letters dated 22.6.2020, wherein the opposite party No. 1 duly informed to the complainant that the excess deductions are the charges levied by the complainant's banker and not by the opposite party No. 1, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. 

13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also argued that the complainant availed three loans from the opposite party No. 1 and the complaint is not related with the opposite party No. 2. It is further argued that as per the notification of Govt. of India, if any person is ready to deposit installments as interest or principal, then the institution cannot refused to accept his amount of installment or interest and the opposite party No. 2 deducted the amount from the account of the complainant on the request submitted by the complainant through the opposite party No. 1, but the demand made by the opposite party No. 1 from the opposite party No. 2 not fulfill as the sufficient balance is not available in the account of the complainant. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 2 charged the expenses as per the instructions of the Bank and RBI and the employees of the opposite party No. 2 duly satisfied the complainant about the charges and the computerized system of the Bank automatically deducted charges on account of failure of honor EMI from the account of the complainant. It is further argued that no written complaint was received by the opposite party No. 2 from the complainant, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. 

14. It is admitted fact by the parties that the complainant availed three loans from the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant has one saving Account No. 3380144946 with the opposite party No. 2. The case of the complainant is that from the month of April 2020 to June 2020, the opposite parties in spite of RBI guidelines deducted an amount of Rs. 5,015/- vide 17 transactions each of Rs. 295/-. Moreover, on 28.5.2020 in one day the opposite party No. 1 presented the EMI 12 times and for each bounces Rs. 295/- was deducted by the opposite parties. When the complainant inquired about the matter, the opposite party No. 1 said that the deducted amount is fault of the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 said it is on the part of opposite party No. 1 because the opposite party No. 1 presented the monthly EMI and due to the insufficient fund said EMI got bounce and opposite party No. 2 has deducted the DDM bounce charges. 

15. From the perusal of Ex.O.Ps-2/4 statement of account shows that from April 2020 to June 2020 an amount of Rs. 5,015/- vide 17 transactions each of Rs. 295/- (250 + 45) has been deducted from the account of complainant on account of FAILED DDM CHARGES D GST by the opposite party No. 2. From Ex.O.Ps-2/4 it is also shows that on 28.5.2020 in one day 12 times an amount of Rs. 295/- has been deducted by the opposite party No. 2 on account of FAILED DDM CHARGES D GST. 

16. However, in the month of March 2020 Indian Government announced lockdown due to the Corona Virus due to which The Reserve Bank of India in the month of March, 2020 on 27.3.2020 issued notification No. RBI/2019/2020/186 DOR No. BP.BC47/21.04.048/2019-20 vide which it is said that in respect of all term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans), all commercial banks (including regional rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), co-operative banks, all-India Financial Institutions, and NBFCs (including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all installments falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31,2020. The repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board by three months after the moratorium period. Interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period. That installments will include the following payments falling due from March 1, 2020 to May 31 2020 (i) principal and/or interest components; (ii) bullet repayments; (iii) Equated Monthly installments; (iv) credit card. Further, on May 23, 2020 Reserve Bank of India again issued one notification bearing No. RBI/2019-20/244/ DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.4.048/2019-20 in which again RBI increased the moratorium period. It is important to mention here that the above said guidelines of Reserve Bank of India are very well within the knowledge of both the opposite parties being financial institutions and the same are not denied by both the opposite parties at any point of time. Both the opposite parties are stated that the complainant has not made moratorium/request to the opposite parties. But we are of the view that even then it is the duty of both the opposite parties as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India due to Corona Virus the opposite party No. 1 is not supposed to present the EMIs to the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 as per the above said guidelines of RBI should not charged the bouncing charges of Rs. 5,015/- vide 17 transactions each of Rs. 295/-. Moreover, on 28.5.2020 the 12 times the opposite party No. 1 presented the EMI and the opposite party No. 2 charged bouncing charges of Rs. 295/- each and this fact is proved from the Ex.OPs-2/4 statement of account of the complainant. So, from the above mentioned facts it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties. 

17. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,015/- to the complainant in equal share alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deductions till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2,200/- to the complainant on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

18. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

19. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       12th Day of July, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member