Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/73/2022

MOHIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, GENERAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

PRITISH GOEL, ABHAY GUPTA , AMAR VIVEK AGGARWAL

31 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	73 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	30.09.2022
Date of Decision	:	31.05.2023

 

Mohit Gupta, aged about 44 years, son of Late Sh. Ravinder Nath Gupta, resident of #3776, DC Road Ambala Cantt., Haryana – 133001.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1]       Bajaj Finance Ltd., through its authorized officer C/o 4^th Floor, Survey #208/1-B behind Weikfield IT Park, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014, 2^nd Address: 3^rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Plot 43/1, 43/2 & 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411014, Maharashtra through its General Manager.

2]       Bajaj Finance Ltd. through its authorized officer, SCO-57, 58, 59, Sector 17A, Chandigarh – 160017 through its Authorized Officer.  

 

…..Opposite parties

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by :  Sh. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                    Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant raised a loan of Rs.10,13,100/- vide loan agreement bearing Loan Account No.440PRF52618806 dated 30.09.2017 which he was paying vide monthly installments of Rs.24,664/- through ECS and in the month of June 2020, the deduction of the EMI’s was stopped by the opposite parties as the loan amount was duly paid along with interest. “No dues certificate” dated 15.05.2020, Annexure C-1, and 31.10.2020, Annexure C-3,  respectively were issued by the opposite parties, voluntarily. However, shockingly and surprisingly thereafter, the complainant received a legal notice from the opposite parties for the non-payment of a totally non-existent and an imaginary loan agreement, which the opposite parties have forged, fabricated and created themselves vide alleged Account No. 440PRFGJ414783. The opposite parties also sent “Loan Recall Notice” regarding the disputed loan and further initiated the arbitration proceedings against the complainant. The opposite parties do not have guts to produce the documents relating to the said subsequent loan agreement because these do not exist or have been forged by them. Not only this, on several documents signatures of complainant were forged and fabricated. Thereafter, the opposite party raised a claim of an alleged forged and fabricated loan agreement dated 30.10.2020 seeking to recover some amounts from complainant thereby tarnishing his image and damaging his reputation. Opposite Party No.1 issued communication dated 27.10.2020 by way of notice, Annexure C-2, stating that the loan disbursed to complainant stands unpaid. However, the opposite parties convinced the complainant that their notice dated 27.10.2020 had inadvertently been issued and yet another no dues dated 31.10.2020, Annexure C-3, was issued to the complainant.

2]                It has further been stated that after 3 months, a loan recalled notice dated 18.01.2021, Annexure C-4, was received by complainant in respect of a fresh purported loan account no.440PRFGJ414783, stating therein that the complainant had obtained a loan of sum of Rs.589616/-,  loan agreement was duly entered into on 30.10.2020 and loan was to be repaid in the form of monthly installments of Rs.24,663/-. It is the case of the complainant that there is no loan agreement dated 30.10.2020 with Opposite Party No.1, which is false and bogus and the loan agreement so created is an unfair contract as per Section 2(46) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Opposite Party No.1 was required to produce the said loan agreement but it failed to produce the same and the agreement shown to have been done on 30.10.2020 is fictitious. The outstanding amount further increased to Rs.6,42,083/-. The notice was duly replied vide reply dated 01.02.2021, Annexure C-5. Further, the opposite parties unilaterally sent notice dated 01.02.2021, Annexure C-6, regarding the commencement of arbitration proceedings in respect of purported fraudulent loan agreement no.440PRFGJ414783, which the complainant duly replied, Annexure C-7. Again, notice dated 26.02.2021, Aannexure C-8, was sent to complainant and date and time of arbitration was fixed on 08.04.2021, to which, the complainant duly resisted vide Annexure C-9, dated 16.03.2021. Further vide loan recall notice dated 27.04.2021, Annexure C-10, the complainant was asked to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.6,47,206/-. Similarly, arbitration proceedings were carried on against the complainant vide notices, Annexures C-11 to C-19, the latest dated 13.09.2022, Annexure C-20, whereby demand of Rs.7,28,334/- was made. It has further been stated that  CIBIL score of the complainant has also been reduced due to all this and the agreement is unfair contract. The complainant by way of this complaint has prayed for grant of Rs.5 Crore as compensation for unfair contract and deficiency in service and Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- .

3]                The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing their written statement, wherein, they pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous and has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and based on wrong information and not maintainable and liable to be rejected with costs. It has further been stated that the complainant has filed this complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties and capitalize the situation arising out of the contract done during covid period. It has further been stated that the complainant has not made any communication with opposite party No.2. The opposite parties have also raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that since the loan was availed from Ambala Branch of the opposite parties, loan agreement was signed at Ambala, the complainant is also resident of Ambala, so this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint before this Commission at Chandigarh; that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount of loan in dispute is also less that Rs.50,00,000/- and also the consideration paid by the complainant as processing fee is also much less; that the present matter is purely contractual and commercial in nature; hence this complaint is not maintainable.

4]                However, on merits, it has been pleaded that during May 2020, Covid-19 was at its peak and there was lockdown also. Due to technical glitch/error in the system, the loan was closed and no repayment of the outstanding amount was done by the complainant, there was heavy rush and confusion due to moratorium also. The error was realized but by that time, the period of five months had passed and no EMI was deducted during that period and waiver was also provided to the complainant. So, a new loan was rebooked for the outstanding amount of Rs.5,93,033/- and another NOC was issued in October with regard to the previous loan account statements of both the loans, Annexure R-3  & R-4. Further, the complainant failed to pay any installment or EMI for the new loan, though legally, he was bound to repay the outstanding amount. So, after waiting for some time, the notices were duly sent to the complainant and taking benefit of the situation, the complainant raised the issue of the second loan without his consent, whereas, he has failed to place on record any document to show that in MAY 2020, he repaid the entire outstanding loan amount for Loan No.440PRF52618806. It has further been stated that the complainant fully knew that he had not repaid the previous loan and it had been closed due to technical glitch/error in the system and another loan was rebooked after five months, as the tenure of the existing loan could not be increased, so fresh loan was rebooked. It has further been stated that the complainant failed to re-pay the amount due, so the arbitration proceedings were started.

5]                It has further been stated that the escalation raised by the complainant with the RBI and the RBI after being satisfied with the reply of the opposite parties did not take any action regarding said escalation. Moreover, the complainant concealed the fact from this Commission that he had filed a complaint before the EOW of the Police at Ambala and the opposite parties duly filed a reply to the same and even the police has not initiated any action further after being convinced with the reply filed by the opposite parties, Annexure R-5 & R-6. Pleading no deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice on their part, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

6]                Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written reply filed by the opposite party.

7]                The parties led evidence in support of their cases.

8]                We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record of the case and written arguments very carefully.

9]                In fact, the issue before this Commission is whether any deficiency or unfair trade practice has been adopted by the opposite parties or the contract between parties is unfair as alleged by the complainant, if yes then whether he is entitled for compensation.  However, before going into that aspect of the case, we would like to first decide the preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties as under:-

10]              With regard to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction and the commercial nature, it is hereby held that the loan was though a professional loan but it was for personal use and the opposite parties are carrying on business for gain at Chandigarh, therefore, the complainant duly falls within the definition of the consumer and this Commission has got the territorial jurisdiction as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction as per provisions of 47(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The objections raised in this regard stand rejected.

11]              However, on merits, the whole issue raised by the complainant falls flat, as admittedly, the EMIs were stopped and NOC was issued on 15.05.2020, Annexure C-1 due to technical error. As on 31.10.2020, amount of Rs.5,89,616/- was due and since the loan was  closed, therefore, another loan was rebooked for the amount of Rs.5,89,616/-, as is clearly evident from the account statements Annexure R-3 & R-4 placed on record by the opposite parties. It is worth mentioning here that due waiver for five months was also given to the complainant as per RBI direction on moratorium and no EMI was deducted during this period. The complainant was well aware that he has not repaid the loan and the NOC has been issued inadvertently. On one hand, the complainant has further mentioned that the opposite parties could have recovered the amount, if it was due but he has failed to place on record any document evidence to prove that he has repaid the loan from his own funds. Since, the technical error was observed, as such, the notice was issued by the legal firm but it was realized that the said loan could not be continued after lapse of five months, so a fresh loan no.440PRFGJ41483 was rebooked on 30.10.2020 and another fresh NOC for previous loan account no.440PRF52618806 was issued but the fact remains that the complainant has not repaid the outstanding loan amount.

12]              It may also be stated here that as per both the account statements, the terms of the previous loan has not been changed, same rate of interest is there, only the tenure of five months was added, for which, the EMI was not deducted, rather the opposite parties have waived off the interest for five months and also they stopped deducting the EMI through ECS. Had the EMI being deducted and payment for fresh loan been also deducted, the complainant would have a case. It is a fact that complainant was to pay Rs.5,89,616/- as on 31.10.2020, which he failed to pay till date. Not even a single installment has been paid by him. In our considered view, this is a clear cut case of undue enrichment for the technical fault on the part of the opposite parties.

13]                       The contention of the complainant that he was not informed about the technical glitch and only in the written statement, it has been mentioned by the opposite parties, is totally unfounded in view of the Annexure R-6, which is dated 05.10.2021, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned by the opposite parties. The complainant was fully informed and it was informed before the police and RBI also. The complainant was asked to show/produce any receipt/copy of bank statement to prove that the repayment of Rs.5,89,616/- which was made by him to the opposite parties in May 2020 but  he could not produce any and remained silent. The complainant has not mentioned anything either in his complaint or in his rejoinder. In our considered opinion, the action taken by the opposite parties is as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Since the complainant failed to re-pay his loan, therefore, arbitration proceedings were started against him. The previous agreement exists and the rebooked loan was in continuation of that only. The complainant is trying to derive benefit out of the technical error in the system of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are demanding the rightful money, which the complainant is bound to repay along with interest as per terms and conditions.  The complainant has not repaid his loan and for recovery of the said loan amount, the opposite parties have every right to take legal action against the complainant. Accordingly, the CIBIL score of the complainant is also bound to reduce when he has failed to repay the loan well in time and defaulted in repayment thereof. 

14]              Further, bare perusal of additional documents placed on record by the opposite parties, the opposite parties have admitted that there is no second agreement as only the remaining loan amount was rebooked with new number and in support of this contention, the opposite parties have submitted that all over India, there were a total of 77 cases where the loans were wrongly closed due to some technical issues and the same were re-booked after the said snag was observed and no new physical agreement was got signed from any of the customer but only the loans were re-booked with same terms and conditions for the remaining tenures only after providing due waivers. Whole list has been provided in the e-mails which have been placed on record as Annexure A-1(colly). Moreover, the SMS regarding the new rebooked loan was duly sent to the customers and also regarding the payment of overdue amount and the EMI. The entire SMS record of the complainant has also been placed on record as Annexure A-2(colly) but even after the complainant was well informed regarding the same, he has not paid a single EMI and raised the present issue with regard to the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the opposite parties alleging unfair trade practice. Perusal of Annexure A-3(colly) and A-4(colly) also reveals that other customers whose loan were re-booked are paying the installments and some have repaid their entire loan.

15]              In view of foregoing discussion and observations, we can safely conclude that complainant has failed to repay his loan and has failed to establish any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is ironical that the complainant himself has tried to take benefit of his own wrong and the technical error on the part of the opposite parties. This amounts to illegal enrichment of complainant for no fault of opposite parties. We also do not agree with the allegations of the complainant with regard to unfair contract. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

16]              For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous Application No.194 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

17]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

18]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

31.05.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Ad