Haryana

Ambala

CC/280/2021

Rajni Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	280 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	01.09.2021
Date of decision	:	03.10.2023

 

Rajni Rani W/O Late Jasbir Singh Resident of House Near Ravi Dass Mandir, Shahzadpur, Tehsil-Nariangarh, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD, Branch Office, Nariangarh, Distt-Ambala (Haryana) (Through its Branch Manager)
2. SHREE LUXMI ENTERPRISES, Main Bazar, Shahzadpur, Distt- Ambala (Haryana)-134202 (Through its Prop).
3. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD, Regd Office, Akurdi, PUNE-(Maharashtra) 411035 (Through its CEO)

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     None for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                  Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 and 3.                                                                                                                            Shri Harpreet Saini, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs 4491/- (Overpayment) alongwith @18% p.a.
2. To issue clearance certificate in respect of the loan account in question.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant.
4. To pay a sum of Rs 3000/- litigation charges.

OR

5. Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that on 04 Sep 2020, the complainant had purchased one Mobile phone Redmi Model-8A (3+6Y) bearing IMEI No- 860162058596146, 860162058596153 from OP No.2 and paid Rs.4000/- in cash out of Rs.9990/-. Balance amount Rs.5,990/-  was got financed from OPs No.1 and 3 with 06 installment of Rs.1278/- per month which was to be debited through her Bank account No - 6398001700006411 at P.N.B Shahzadpur Distt-Ambala, was payable till Mar 2021. On 03-10-2020 first Installment Rs.1726/- had been deducted from the account of the complainant instead of Rs.1278/- and total amount has been deducted from the Bank account of the complainant as under:-
   1. Rs 1726/- on 03-10-2020
   2. Rs 118/- on 03-11-2020
   3. Rs 118/- on 05-11-2020
   4. Rs 450/- on 13-11-2020
   5. Rs 118/- on 05-12-2020
   6. Rs 118/- on 08-12-2020
   7. Rs 1278/- on 11.12.2020
   8. Rs 295/- on 18-12-2020
   9. Rs 1573/- on 04-01-2021
   10. Rs.1573/-  on 03.02.2021
   11. Rs 101/- on 05-03-2021= Total Rs 7,468/-
   12. Rs 16/-+118/- + 17/-+118/-+118/-+118/-+118/-+390/- 1on 7-08-2021 (SHORTFALL REC) Total Rs 1,013/-

                   The complainant had also paid Rs.1300/- in cash to the representative of OP No.1 –Mr. Subham for the month of Nov 2020; Rs.1278/- in cash to the representative of OP No.2- Mr. Yogesh Manish; and in  the month of Mar 2021, he paid  Rs.1100/- in cash to Mr. Yugam. In this manner, total amount of Rs.12,159/-  i.e. Rs. 8481/- deducted by OP No.2 from her bank + Rs 3,678/- paid in cash to the various person of the OPs and as such,  Rs.4,491/- had been  received in excess from the complainant by the OPs.  The complainant approached the OPs, number of times, with a request to refund the excess amount of Rs.4491/- but to no avail.   Hence, the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, maintainability, no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions of the EMI Network card ("the said card"), its joining and annual membership fees and other charges, which fact is evident from the fact that he duly consented to avail the said Card being an existing customer. Since, the complainant was no more interested in the said EMI Card, OPs No.1 and 3 in good faith refunded the deducted amount of Rs.317/- on 30th Dec 2021 vide UTR No: 365211772567284 in the loan account No: 591CDDGF238738 and has also blocked the EMI card which was issued to the complainant. The complainant had purchased one Xiomi Mobile from the OP No.2 and had accordingly availed a loan from OPs No.1 and 3 vide Loan account no; 591CDDGF238738 for an amount of Rs.11500/- on 05.09.2020 with a monthly EMI of Rs. 1278/- to be deducted for 09 months out of which the complainant has paid 3 EMI's in advance and the balance had to be paid in 6 equal installments commencing from 02.10.2020 and ending on 02.03.2021. The complainant had issued NACH Mandate/Auto Debit for the repayment of the installments. As on date the said loan account stands closed and the No Objection Certificate has also been issued. No amount in excess has been deducted and the EMI's have been deducted based on the repayment schedule only. The complainant had also availed another loan towards the insurance i.e. Loan account No: 591FBTGF370345 for an amount of Rs.1768/- for 6 months commencing from 02.10.2020 and ending on 02.03.2021 with an EMI of Rs.295/-. The amount of Rs.118/- which has been deducted was towards the EMI card renewal charges which have been refunded to the complainant on 30th Dec 2021. An amount of Rs.295/- is the EMI towards the Insurance loan account duly consented and Rs.1573/- is the consolidated amount of both the EMI's of the two loans availed and hence there is no excess amount deducted. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.1 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed  written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that  the complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate OP No.2; the dispute is between OPs No.1 and 3 and the complainant only etc.  On merits, it has been stated that on 04.09.2020 the complainant had purchased a Mobile phone Redmi model of Rs.9,990/- from OP No.2. The complainant paid Rs. 4,000/- in cash to OP No.2 and due to shortage of funds, he approached OPs No.1 and 3 and got the remaining amount financed from them and there is no liability of the answering OP. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5.           Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure C-A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 tendered evidence of Ms. Shivani Garg, Authorized Representative of OPs No.1 and 3 Company-Bajaj Finance Limited,  1^st Floor, SCF 35, BRS Nagar, Opp. Police Station, Ludiana-141002 as Annexure RX alongwith documents AnnexuresOP1/1 to OP1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OP No.2 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 27.02.2023.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, at the time of arguments, therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 submitted that no excess charges were even received by OPs No.1 and 3 from the complainant and therefore the question of refunding any amount to the complainant did not arise.
8.           Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that if the complainant had paid any amount to OPs No.1 and 3 over and above the amount which was recovered from the complainant against the loan account in question, OP No.2 is not liable to refund the same to the complainant. .
9.           The moot question which falls for determination in this case is, as to whether, the complainant is  entitled to refund of any amount from the OPs or not. It is evident from the cash memo dated 04.09.2020, Annexure C-1 that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.9,990/-. However, for making payment of the said amount, the complainant had availed loan from OPs No.1 and 3 as is evident from the documents Annexure C-4. Perusal of Annexure C-4 reveals that the loan amount was fixed at Rs.11500/- out of which the complainant had paid upfront amount of Rs.3834/- to OPs No.1 and 3 and the remaining amount of Rs.7668/- was to be paid in 9 equal installments of Rs.1278/- each. At the same time, it is also coming out from the documents Annexure C-3 and C-4 collectively that the complainant defaulted in making payments of installments on number of occasions, as a result of which, cheque bouncing charges were levied by OPs No.1 and 3, which has been shown totaling to Rs.1,350/-. Apart from this, it is also coming out from the record, Annexure C-3 that the complainant had also availed another loan towards the insurance i.e. Loan account No: 591CDDG238738 for an amount of Rs.1768/- repayable in 6 months commencing from 02.10.2020 and ending on 02.03.2021 with an EMI of Rs.295/-, in which also, he defaulted some payments, as a result of which, Rs.200/- as late payment penalty was levied on him. The complainant has failed to challenge these documents, by  placing on record any contrary evidence. It is significant to add here that from the table shown in the complaint in para no.4 itself, it is coming out that only on four occasions, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1726/- on 03.10.2020, Rs.1278/- on 11.12.2020 and Rs.1573/- (twice) on 04.01.2021 and 03.02.2021 to OPs No.1 and 3 and remaining installments amount were paid in parts, whereas, on the other hand, he was bound to pay Rs.1278/- per month for a total term of 9 months regularly. Thus, is it held that OPs No.1 and 3 were justified in levying cheque bouncing charges upon the complainant. 
10.           At the same time, the plea taken by the complainant that he had paid Rs.1300/- as cash to OPs No.1 and 3 in November 2020; Rs.1278/- in cash to OP No2  and Rs.1100/- in cash to OP No.2 in March 2021 i.e. totaling to Rs.3678/- cannot be accepted because no evidence in that regard has been placed on record. 
11.           Under above circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that he is entitled to get refund of any amount out of the amount already paid by him to the OPs. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 03.10.2023

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President