Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/139/2018

Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/139/2018

Date of Institution

:

26/03/2018

Date of Decision   

:

11/10/2018

Surjeet Singh son of Sh. Jarnail Singh, aged 30 years, r/o village Masatgarh, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bajaj  Finance Limited (Bajaj Finserv), SCO No.56, Second Floor, Above Punjab National Bank, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 

… Opposite Party

CORAM :

SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR

PRESIDENT

 

MRS. SURJEET KAUR

MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY

:

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant

 

:

Sh. Varun Sharma, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

  1.         The facts, in brief, are complainant, who is a 100% physically disabled person, had earlier taken loan from the OP and there was no default in the repayment.  The entire loan account was cleared and the loan account stood closed.  In the month of June 2016, police officials had come to arrest the complainant in connection with a criminal complaint pending trial before the learned JMIC, Chandigarh. On enquiry it was found, at the instance of OP, a criminal complaint under Section 25 of the Payment & Settlement System Act, 2007 was launched against the complainant. After checking record, it was found, a loan of Rs.47,700/- was disbursed to one Sh. Surjit Singh r/o H.No.203, Village Mulanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali against loan account No.4240CD07708164 while by mistake it was shown against the complainant.  On realizing their mistake, the criminal complaint was withdrawn and even after withdrawal, complainant on checking the CIBIL status found his name in defaulter’s list and the same was not removed despite various requests.  As such, there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the present consumer complaint with the prayer for directing the OP to send information for removal of the complainant’s name from the defaulter’s list, pay compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses.
  2.         OP has furnished its written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complainant not being the consumer. Admitted, due to inadvertent technical error in the system, loan was booked in the name of complainant having same name of the person who had defaulted.  On checking record, the mistake was rectified and the criminal complaint launched against the complainant was withdrawn. Complainant had not asked for removal of his name from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL.     On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
  3.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
  4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
  5.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After scrutiny of record, our findings are as under:-
  6.         Per pleadings of the parties, the undisputed and admitted facts are, loan amount taken by the complainant from the OP was already closed and the OP negligently and by attributing it to be a system error showed the complainant’s name in the defaulter’s list.  Not only this, the OP even filed a criminal complaint for offence under Section 25 of the Payment & Settlement System Act, 2007 against the complainant which was later on withdrawn after detecting the error. We are afraid to note, a criminal complaint for the commission of offence with the prayer to sentence the complainant to imprisonment was filed by the OP before the learned JMIC, Chandigarh without actually verifying the present complainant being a defaulter or some other
    Surjit Singh r/o H.No.203, Village Mulanpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.  This fact is clear as the said complaint was later on withdrawn as per record produced.  There is no manner of doubt, the act and conduct of the official(s)/officer(s) of OP was reckless, suffers from gross negligence, without caring to scrutinize the record and putting an innocent consumer at jeopardy to face trial of a criminal offence.
  7.         Admittedly, as per record and documents produced, complainant is 100% disabled as he is on wheel chair and it is also made out from the certificate of disability (Annexure A) issued by the Medical Board of SAS Nagar.  Officer(s)/official(s) of the OP had even no compassion for a physically handicapped person who was put to harassment and not only this even after withdrawal of the criminal complaint it was noticed, name of the complainant was wrongly put in the defaulter’s list in the CIBIL record.  However, no immediate action was taken by the OP to get the complainant’s name removed from the said defaulter’s list. 
  8.         We are at pain to note and express our displeasure on the act and conduct of the OP whose officer(s)/official(s) had no human touch and sympathy with a person who is totally dependent on others for his day-to-day needs.  Now a vague defence is being set up by the OP that the complainant did not pursue with the OP for the removal of his name from the defaulter’s list from the CIBIL record which is totally ridiculous.  The name of the complainant was wrongly put on the defaulter’s list by the OP and it was their bounden duty to get it removed even if there was any error which had occurred due to gross negligence on the part of officer(s)/official(s) of OP. The loan account of the complainant was already closed.  Thus, we arrive at a finding that it is a case of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
  9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under:-
  1. To immediately take the required steps and get the complainant’s name removed from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL, if not already done.
  2. To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service as well as mental agony and harassment caused to him;
  3. To pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.
  1.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
  2.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

Sd/-

Sd/-

11/10/2018

[Surjeet Kaur]

[Rattan Singh Thakur]

 hg

Member

President

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.