Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 124
Instituted on : 12.02.2021
Decided on : 12.12.2022.
Sanjeev Verma age 52 years, s/o Late Sh. Radha Kirshan R/o Preet Vihar Near Old Housing Board Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Finance Limited 1152/22, 2nd Floor, near Sonipat Stand, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- Regd. Office C/o Bajaj Auto Limited Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411035.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rinku Jangra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he purchased a refrigerator from the Pall & Co. Rohtak for a sum of Rs.17750/- in the year 2007 and got financed the same from the Bajaj Finance Company . The complainant paid a down payment of Rs.5920/- which was paid by him in cash and 8 cheques of Rs.1480/- were given to the opposite parties. In the year 2012 a phone call received by the complainant from CID Baljeet Singh who told the complainant that there as a case of forgery against the complainant. Upon enquiry, he was told that a cheque of Rs.1480/-, which he had given to Bajaj Finance Company was bounced and the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs.20-25000/- including fine in the office of opposite parties, whereas the complainant has paid all the installments in time. When complainant applied for another loan, he was told that his CIBIL score was faulty so no bank will provide loan to the complainant. Thereafter he contacted the opposite parties for issuing the NOC as he had already cleared the loan amount. Complainant submitted the bank detail to the opposite parties as per which, cheque no.428401 was cleared in favour of the company. But despite that neither the NOC was provided to the complainant nor CIBIL was corrected by the opposite parties. Due to act of opposite parties, complainant suffered a mental trauma and he had to admit in the hospital and spent a huge amount on his treatment. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to provide NOC and to correct the CIBIL of the complainant. It is also prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.455000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.40000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. .
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that complainant had availed a loan of Rs.17750/- on 30.05.2007 from the opposite parties and the same was to be repaid in 12 installments of Rs.1480/-each. The complainant submitted cheque for payment of EMI dated 15.06.2007 but the aforesaid cheque No.428401 was produced for encashment on 28.07.2007 which got bounced, which resulted in the bouncing charges and late payment penalty charges being leived due to his own fault. The complainant paid the last EMI on 15.05.2008 and never turned his face to pay one pending EMI and aforesaid negligent act of not paying the EMI’s & charges has in turn spoilt the CIBIL score of the complainant. Till today the complainant is not accepting his mistake and even not ready to pay his dues. Complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention as such the same is liable to be dismissed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 18.04.2022. Learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 25.07.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main objection of the insurance company is that the complainant has not repaid the loan amount to the respondent bank. As per respondent cheque no.428401 was issued by the complainant for repayment of one instalment and same was put up for clearance with the bank in the month of July/2007. But same was got bounced. Respondents have not received the payment against the cheque no.428401 issued by the complainant. It has been further submitted that the last EMI has been paid by the complainant on dated 15.05.2008. As per agreement 12 monthly installments were to be repaid by the complainant having EMI amounting to Rs.1480/-. To prove the fact, the respondent has placed on record a copy of loan financial summary from 30.05.2007 to 14.01.2022. As per respondent the cheque no.428401 was bounced and Rs.1480/- have been shown as instalment due, Rs.37103/- overdue on account of late payment penalty and Rs.569/- on account of other receivables are still outstanding. As per this summary placed on record the total installment amount was Rs.17750/- and they have received only Rs.16270/-. The only one installment is pending i.e. Rs.1480/-.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The complainant has placed on record a copy of account statement Ex.C1 w.e.f. January 2005 to September 2008. The bare perusal of this account statement shows that the cheque no.428401 has been debited from the account of complainant in the month of July 2007. Moreover other cheques have also been debited from the account of complainant. The main plea of the respondent is that there was insufficient fund in the account of complainant in the month of July 2007, due to which cheque has been bounced. But bare perusal of Ex.C1 shows that the complainant’s account was not short at any time from July 2005 to September 2008. The minimum amount was in the month of January 2005 i.e. Rs.2797/-. Thereafter in the month of July 2007 it was Rs.65330/- and in August 2007 it was Rs.50890/-. Thereafter till September 2008, it was not less than Rs.41329/-. Moreover it is not proved on file that the alleged amount of Rs.1480/- was once debited and then credited to the account of complainant. Meaning thereby the amount of Rs.1480/- has been debited from the account of complainant against the cheque no.428401. Moreover opposite parties have failed to place on record any bounced cheque and memo issued by the concerned bank to prove that there was insufficient fund in the account of complainant. Merely ledger statement has been placed on record, which did not prove that there was insufficient fund in the account of complainant and the cheque has not been utilized. Moreover at the time of arguments, one more document has been placed on record by the complainant i.e. ‘Annexure-JNA’, as per which it is certified that the cheques no.428401-408 have been cleared between 21.07.2007 to 30.01.2008 in favour of Bajaj Auto finance Ltd. Meaning thereby, opposite parties have taken the wrong plea that they have not received the payment against the cheque no.428401 issued by the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue NOC to the complainant regarding the loan amount and to send a report to the CIBIL that nothing is pending against the complainant since 2008 and to correct the CIBIL SCORE. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.12.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
