DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/76/2020
Date of Institution: 04.03.2020
Date of Decision: 17.07.2024
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar resident of House No. B-XI/2146, Ward No. 13, Opposite Chintu Park, Backside of Fire Brigade, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab, India.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Finserv Finance Company Limited Branch at Opposite Old Cinema, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Finserv Finance Company Limited Registered office at Bajaj Auto Limited Complex, Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411035 through its Authorized Person/Signatory.
3. Trans Union Cibil Limited (Formerly Credit Information Bureau), One World Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013 through its Authorized Signatory/Representative.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: Sh. Sandeep Singh Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Munish Kumar Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant Sandeep Kumar filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against Bajaj Finserv Finance Company Limited, Barnala and others. (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has a Bajaj Digital EMI Card No. 2030401591121199 based on his mobile No. 97793-43789 issued by the opposite party company through which the products eligible to the opposite party company can be purchased on installments and at the time of purchase of first product on the said Bajaj Digital EMI Card requisite fee of this card was taken from the complainant and the opposite parties issued three Bajaj Digital EMI Cards included the said card and remaining two cards are in the name of the complainant's wife.
3. It is further alleged that the complainant purchased many products on the said card and complainant has been paying all the installments without any interval since the day, the said card was issued. Only one first installment of first loan taken by the complainant was broke down due to misunderstanding but later on since then the complainant has been paying all the installments of all the loans. In the month of October 2019 the complainant purchased two products on installments having loan No. 6R8ECFFl289963 amounting to Rs. 58,785/- in 12 installments of Rs. 4,899/- each for the product of HP Laptop availed in the month of October 2019 and Loan No. 6R8ECFFJ571339 amounting to Rs. 10,260/- in six installments of Rs. 1,710/- each for a product of Apple Keyboard and installments for both these loans were to be started on 2.12.2019. The said were purchased from two different online portals i.e. Paytm and Flipkart respectively.
4. It is further alleged that on 28.10.2019 the complainant received messages in respect of the intimation for keeping the sufficient amount of installment in the bank account on his mobile and it was also showing an offer for reducing the previous loan. Thereafter, when the complainant checked the status of his EMIs all the loans on the application Bajaj Finserv, it was showing the same offer for reducing the last two installments of his pending loan Account 6R8ECFER103682 for Rs. 11,490/-. At that point of time the pending amount of loan was Rs. 3,830/- and further installments of the same were to be started November onwards in four installments of Rs. 1,020/- each including interest of Rs. 249/-. The complainant availed this offer. As per this offer the next two EMIs of Rs. 1,915/- each belonging to this loan were to be deducted in four installments of Rs. 1,020/- each 2.112019 onwards. On 2.11.2019 the complainant came to know that said reduction process was not done and amount of Rs. 1,195/- belonging to the said loan was deducted in the same manner it had started from the complainant's bank account attached with all the loans. During this process the complainant again checked the application Bajaj Finserv there was another offer showing for reducing the aforesaid last two loans amounting to Rs. 58,785/- and Rs. 10,260/- and 18 installments of Rs. 4,572/- each total amount comes to Rs. 82,296/- including interest of Rs. 13,249/-. It seemed to be huge interest and complainant was not agreed to avail this offer as he deemed to inappropriate to him because it was with huge interest of Rs. 13,249/-. Further, when the complainant was outside his city he received a message that he has availed loan of Rs. 69,045/- on 10.11.2019. The complainant was shocked that how could it be possible when he did not even permit the application to do so and complainant could not approach the near branch of OP as he was outside city. When the complainant came back to Barnala he got contact number of the employee of opposite party No. 1 and narrated the entire version to him. The said employee informed the complainant that without OTP the reduction process cannot be done and he suggested the complainant to send an email to complaint department. Thereafter, complainant firstly visited the said application and wrote a message to convert the loan of Rs. 69,045/- having interest amount of Rs. 13,249/- in its earlier position and complainant also wrote that he did not avail this offer. On 17.11.2019 the complainant received an email that as per our inline policy we are unable to cancel the EMI reduction loan once it gets generated. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the opposite parties through many mails that he did not give any permission with regard to reduce the amount of installments of said two loans nor he got any OTP to avail this offer and requested the opposite parties to cancel the scheme on the said two new loan accounts as this service was started by the opposite parties on their own. But the opposite parties have not done any appropriate job and also did not convert the said loan to earlier position and now they are deducting excess amount of interest without any fault of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties be directed to convert two loans in question into earlier position without interest and remove the interest amount made to the said loan.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4) Any other fit relief may also be given.
5. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written reply in which they submitted that the company is not engaged in business of financing of consumer durables to the end customers as alleged in the complaint and not having any branch office anywhere in India. The company neither provided any loan to the complainant nor collected any amount from the complainant. The complainant has availed various consumer durable loans from Bajaj Finance Limited but he has not made party to the complaint. The opposite parties further have taken preliminary objections that the complainant has not come with the clean hands and suppressed the real facts from this Commission. The complainant had taken loan from the opposite party so the relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of debtor and creditor and not of consumer and service providers.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had been an existing customer of the opposite parties and availed various loans in the past out of which few loan accounts have been closed and No Objection Certificates have been issued however few loan accounts are active as on date. The complainant has also availed a digital EMI Card from the opposite party and purchased a HP Laptop and an Apple Keyboard from E-Commerce website Paytem and Flipkart on 21.10.2019 and 29.10.2019. The transaction was in the form of EMIs at 0% interest rate payable by the complainant to this opposite parties. The complainant on 31.10.2019 requested to avail another loan vide EMI reduction loan i.e. Loan Account No. 6R8EPLFL348523 for reduction in the existing EMIs by increasing its tenure for the two above mentioned loans thereby converting the said loans into a single loan. EMI reduction loan is a loan wherein at the request of the customer the outstanding loan amount of the customer's existing loan is converted into another loan for an equivalent amount of the discretion of the customer. Further upon conversion the existing loan account will be closed and the customer shall be allotted a new loan showing the total outstanding amount due and payable. The complainant himself consented for the EMI reduction loan by logging in Experia App by using his credentials. During the process of loan conversion the complainant authenticated the said online transaction by accepting its terms and conditions and accordingly new loan account was booked in the accounts of this OP. The opposite parties further submitted that the conversion of existing two loans into a single loan being new loan account without the consent of the complainant, this complainant has paid 4 EMIS i.e. December 2019 till March 2020 as per the due dates without any default except the 5th EMI which has been bounced due to the reason of insufficient funds. This shows that the complainant was not only aware about the terms and conditions of the new loan but it is only after the complainant's consent the existing two loans were converted into a single loan and allegation that the loan was converted without his knowledge is false and denied. The complainant has raised the request to convert the two loans to the EMI reduction loan by logging into the Experia App by using his credentials wherein the complainant by availing the option Reduce Your EMI can reduce the existing EMI being paid into a new EMI with details of applicable rate of interest. The complainant has proceeded ahead by accepting the offer and accordingly the existing loan has been converted into the EMI reduction loan followed by the OTP and Authentication details. The said loan has been booked only after the complainant has given his consent for converting the E-Com Consumer Finance Loan account into the EMI Reduction Loan. The complainant approached the opposite party to cancel the loan of the EMI reduction and opposite party duly sent an email on 17.11.2019 informing that the said loan cannot be cancelled as per the internal policy. In the next paras the opposite parties submitted the same submissions as submitted earlier so there is no need to repeat the same. However, they submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
7. The opposite party No. 3 did not appear before this Commission despite service through RC AD so the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.10.2021.
8. The complainant filed rejoinder to written version of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and denied the averments as mentioned in the written version.
9. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-1, copy of EMI Card Ex.C-2, copies of invoices Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of text message Ex.C-5, copies of whatsapp messages Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8, copy of text message Ex.C-9, copy of email dated 10.11.2019 Ex.C-10, copy of message Ex.C-11, copy of email dated 17.9.2019 Ex.C-12, copies of emails dated 21.11.2019 Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-16, copy of email dated 23.11.2019 Ex.C-17, copies of emails dated 25.11.2019 Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-20, copies of emails dated 26.11.2019 Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22, copy of email dated 27.11.2019 Ex.C-23, copy of email dated 1.12.2019 Ex.C-24, copy of email dated 2.12.2019 Ex.C-25, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-26, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-27, certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.C-28, CD Ex.C-29 and closed the evidence.
10. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence copy of email Ex.OPs-1, copies of statement of accounts Ex.OPs-2 and Ex.OPs-3, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OPs-4, copies of statement of accounts Ex.OPs-5 and Ex.OPs-6, copy of EMI reduction Experis App Journey Ex.OPs-7, copies of statement of account Ex.OPs-8 to Ex.OPs-10 and closed the evidence.
11. 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.
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased two products i.e. HP Laptop for Rs. 58,785/- and Apple Keyboard for Rs. 10,260/- through Bajaj Finserv Finance Company on installments with zero percent interest bearing Loan Account No. 6R8ECFFl289963 and Loan No. 6R8ECFFJ571339. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant was depositing the installments of the above said two loans regularly. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that without any intimation and consent of complainant the opposite parties converted the above said two loans into one loan for Rs. 69,045/- including interest bearing Account No. 6R8EPLFL348523. The complainant immediately approached the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainant also sent message to the opposite parties with regard to convert the above said loan into earlier condition, but the opposite parties refused to do and to prove this fact the complainant produced the screen shot Ex.C-11. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.C-11 that complainant mentioned I am/was not agreed with a loan of Rs. 69,045/- & interest of two products and I didn’t avail this offer, kindly start the loans as earlier. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that complainant also sent emails on the emails address 13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that the complainant himself had consented for the EMI reduction loan by lodging in Experia App by using his credentials. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant himself had authenticated the said online transaction by accepting its terms and conditions. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions of the new loan but it is only after the complainant’s consent that the existing two loans were converted into a single loan. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties and opposite parties cannot be held liable as claimed by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the said loan has been booked only after the complainant has given his consent of converting the E-Com Consumer Finance Loan account into the EMI Reduction Loan.
14. We have gone through the entire documents and evidence produced by both the parties and it is established that the complainant has availed the two loans for buying two products and in this regard the complainant has produced the documents and this fact is not denied by the opposite parties. The only disputed in the present complaint is that whether the complainant himself availed EMI Reduction Loan by converting the E-Com Consumer Finance Loan. The complainant produced number of documents messages and emails vide which the complainant requested the opposite parties for starting two loans in earlier condition. But opposite parties refused to entertain the request of the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite parties have failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence from which it established that the complainant had given his consent for converting the both loans in the Reduction Loan. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that both the loans are running with zero percent interest. The complainant never approached or gave consent to the opposite parties to charge the interest by converting into Reduction EMI Loan. It is cleared from the evidence produced by both the parties that the opposite parties without the consent of complainant converted the loan Account No. 6R8ECFFl289963 and Loan No. 6R8ECFFJ571339 in new loan Account No. 6R8EPLFL348523 i.e. Reduction EMI Loan, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
15. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to convert the above said two loans into earlier position without interest. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are further directed to remove the interest amount made to the aforesaid loans. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
17th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
