Haryana

Karnal

CC/227/2020

Aakarshan Uppal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Lending/Bajaj Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Sharma

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.227 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.30.06.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 07.10.2024

 

Aakarshan Uppal son of Shri Satparkash Uppal, resident of 28, Karam Singh colony, Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Bajaj Finserv Lending/Bajaj Finance Ltd. 4^th floor, Bajaj Finserve Corporate office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune through its Managing Director.
2. Harpreet Singh the then Employee of Bajaj Finserv Ltd. SCO 225, 1 & 11 floor, Sector 12, Karnal.
3. Hunny Nagpal, the then Assistant Manager of Bajaj Finserv Ltd. SCO 225, I &II Floor Sector-12, Karnal.
4. Paras Traders, Model Town, Karnal, through its proprietor Ajay Malik.
5. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Kotak Infinity, zone 2, 4^th floor Building no.21, Infinity Park off Western Express Highway General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400097 through its Managing Director/Authorised person Shri Santosh Kumar.

 

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Rajiv Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3.

                    Ms. Shakuntla Dagar, counsel for the OP no.4.

                    OP no.5 exparte, vide order dated 06.06.2023.

 

                     (Neeru Agarwal, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the first week of October 2011, the OP no.4 got published an advertisement in Newspaper “Kalam Yug” for selling the electronic items of various companies such as Samsung, IFB, Whirlpool, LG, Electrolux etc. and assured gifts. After seeing the abovesaid advertisement the complainant alongwith his family and his younger brother Darpan Uppal on 05.10.2011 visited the shop of OP no.4 as complainant wants to purchase a microwave oven and selected Whirlpool AT 245 microwave oven. Upon asking of the complainant, OP no.4 told the price of abovesaid microwave oven as Rs.10,800/-. At the time of purchase of a microwave oven when the complainant became ready to pay Rs.10,800/- in cash, then OP No.4, OP No.2 and OP No.3 allured the complainant to get  finance the microwave oven at the rate of zero per cent finance. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- as an advance payment to OP no.1, who has issued the receipt in this regard and OP No.2 and OP No.3 on the pretext of processing the loan file demanded the documents qua the loan formalities and also demanded 10 signed cheques of amounting to Rs.980/- each. On the asking of the OPs no.2 and 3, complainant provide the photocopies of his pan card, ration card, driving licence and 10 cheques of amounting Rs.980/- each of the monthly installments. After taking documents and installments cheques OPs no.1 to 3 assured to the complainant that product would be delivered at his residence address after completing the loan formalities and his address verification in the evening of dated 05.10.2011. When the product was not delivered till next day, then complainant called many times to OP no.2 and 4, but they did not give any answer to complainant qua the delivery of the abovesaid product. After waiting for sufficient time when the product was not delivered at the residence house of the complainant as promised by OPs No.2 to 4, then complainant reached the shop of Paras Traders and upon dissatisfaction, the complainant paid remaining amount Rs.9800/- in cash to OP no.4 and demanded the documents and cheques back. OP No.2 to 4 told the complainant those documents qua the finance of the abovesaid product was in the office of Bajaj Finserv Company and would be returned it after Diwali season. Thereafter, upon receiving entire payment OP no.4 issued a sale invoice no.2921 on 06.10.2011 qua that product and got delivered the same. OPs No.2 to 4 assured the complainant that documents and cheques would be returning very soon. The complainant also gave a written request to the IDBI bank for stop payment of the abovesaid cheques on 29.10.2011. During this period complainant called to OPs No.2 to 4 so many times but they started being evasive qua the returning of documents and cheque. It was very great shocking surprise for the complainant received a telephonic call after few days, that he was speaking recovery agent of OP no.1 and demanded the installment amount from the complainant upon the pretext that first cheque issued by the complainant of loan installment was dishonoured. Thereafter, complainant alongwith his brother visited at the shop of OP no.4 and also at the Bajaj Finserv Lending Co. at Model Town Karnal personally and met with OPs No.2 to 4 and told them above about installment demand call. Upon which OPs no.2 and 3 replied that the demand call was for recovering Washing Machine Loan which has been got financed by the complainant from OP no.1. Complainant never got financed any washing machine from OP no.1. So, he demanded loan documents of washing machine, but the request of complainant was refused by the OPs no.2 and 3 and threatened the complainant that he has to pay the loan amount of washing machine. After aggrieved from the behavior of the OPs no.2 and 3, complainant sent a complaint through an email qua alleged abovesaid fraud to a senior official of the OP no.3, then OP no.3 supplied the documents to the complainant. Complainant was shocked to see the documents supplied by the OP no.1 i.e. promissory note, electricity bill and invoice of Samsung Washing Machine bearing model no.WA80E5G of Rs.10,800/- issued by OP no.4, did not bear the signature of the complainant and signatures are forged and fabricated one. The particulars fill up in the loan documents are false one, in which complainant has been shown an employee of IDBI Bank, Karnal whereas complainant was never serving in any bank or department. Complainant is Journalist, there is no receipt of delivery of goods on the invoice of complainant and electricity bill is also fake and forged one as till date no such connection of electricity was there in the name of the complainant, which facts itself proves the falseness of the OP persons. All the above documents bear fake and forged signature of the complainant. OP no.3 verified the abovesaid documents and fake physical verification. Complainant also shocked to know that OP no.1 deliberately entered the abovesaid fake loan in CIBIL for dupe the reputation of the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.11.2011 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result.

2.             It is further averred that suddenly in the year 2018, complainant started getting threatening calls for installments qua alleged loan from OP no.5 for recovery of amount Rs.81,550/-. When the complainant enquired about the loan from the executive of OP no.5, then executive of the OP no.5 described a loan account no.5090CD00009357 and balance were due, which was in the name of complainant. Complainant had purchased a washing machine from Paras Traders and finance through Bajaj Finance Company and Kotak Mahindra Bank is now responsible for the recovery. The complainant also received a Notice of Demand for payment of outstanding dues with Bajaj Finance Ltd. letter from OP no.5 on 07.02.2018 and started a series of continuous threats from OP no.5 and abused several times. Moreover, OP no.5 deliberately entered the details of abovesaid fake loan in CIBIL in his name for dupe the reputation of complainant. Aggrieved from the act and conduct of OP persons, the complainant lodged complaints i.e. DEABD/E/2018/14722 and DEABD/E/2019/20654 through PG Portal, to Government of India. Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Manager Kotak Mahindera Bank approached the complainant through mobile phone for redress the abovesaid complaint, which complainant had informed about the whole matter. Complainant had been sent his statement through his email id on 12.07.2019. After this mail, complainant got a call from Mr. Santosh Kumar, Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank and warned him for not to stick upon threatening cum demand calls anywhere, otherwise the complainant would face many problems. As the complainant did not wants to continue with the problem as such as suggested by Mr.Santosh Kumar, the complainant again sent another mail to him after correction on 12.07.2019 and very soon the abovesaid loan will be removed from CIBIL also. Officials of the OPs no.4 and 5 also assured the complainant that they would take action against guilty officials also for the harassment of the complainant. But it was more shocking for the complainant that disputed cheques of IDBI Bank were never presented for encashment, vide letter dated 01.08.2019. In this regard complainant also moved complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 02.08.2019 again qua the fake finance document and this complaint was endorsed no.1462-Peshi dated 05.08.2019 but to no effect. Complainant purchased the product and makes the payment from OP no.4, documents and cheques were taken at the shop of OP no.4 by OPs no.1 to 3 for finance purpose and alleged finance was also taken over by OP no.5 from OP no.1 and hence complainant is a consumer of OPs. It is further averred that Criminal complaint qua the same subject matter is pending in the Civil Court and the same is fixed for 21.09.2020.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental pain agony and harassment and other compensation for which complainant is entitled to be also given to the complainant.

3.             On notice, OPs no.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 12.10.2011, complainant had purchased a Samsung Washing Machine from Dealer i.e. OP no.4 by availing a loan of Rs.10,780/- from the OP at 0% interest per annum, vide loan account no.5090CD00009357, which was repayable, vide eleven installments of Rs.980/- each out of which complainant paid one Emi in advance and the balance ten EMIs were commencing from 05.11.2011 and due on 5^th day of every month. The complainant has executed the Consumer Durable Loan Application forms wherein it specifically mentioned that, he is purchasing Samsung Washing Machine from the OP no.4. OPs have disbursed the loan amount to OP no.4 basis on the loan and other documents of the complainant received from OP no.4. It is further pleaded that complainant is a chronic defaulter towards the payment of the monthly installments and thus in the year 2016, the said loan account was duly assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank i.e. OP no.5, vide Deed of Assignment dated 14.01.2016. The said loan account was closed in the records of the OPs and there were no further correspondence of the OPs with that of complainant. OPs submit that it was only when the OPs had received a complaint/escalation from the RBI in 2019 wherein the complainant had raised the issues of the threatening calls/follow up’s made for the payment of the outstanding due towards his loan, the OP considered the loan amount and year of loan, as an exceptional case had discussed with OP no.5 and suggested the OP no.5 to stop all the follow up calls/any other reminder calls which were being made to the complainant for the payment of the outstanding dues. Also, the OP has taken steps to get corrected the CIBIL report of the complainant as well. This fact is evident from the copy of email sent by the OPs to complainant dated 23.09.2019. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.4 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had visited the shop of the OP for purchasing a washing machine or a microwave oven but finally, he purchased a whirlpool microwave oven for Rs.10,800/- on 05.10.2011 in the late hours. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- and rest of the amount of Rs.9800/- was got financed from Bajaj Finserve. The receipt of Rs.1000/- was issued to the complainant by OP no.4. Even the gifts of coupons were also collected by the complainant. It is wrong and denied that due to non-delivery of product, complainant visited the shop of OP no.4 and paid the remaining amount of Rs.9800/- to the OP. The complainant has not placed on record any receipt regarding the payment of alleged amount of Rs.9800/-. Had the complainant paid the amount of Rs.9800/- to the OP, the OP would definitely have issued the receipt for the said amount. The complainant who now claims to be Journalist and by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed after paying the alleged amount of Rs.9800/-, the complainant would have not taken the receipt of the said amount from the OP.  The complainant did  not make the payment of remaining amount to the OP in any manner as alleged by him. The complainant on his own got financed the product for Rs.9800/- and issued 10 post dated cheques towards the payment of installments of the loan amount and his documents and cheques could not be returned till he makes the full payment of loan amount. It is further pleaded that the complainant had purchased a microwave oven from the OP, but due to inadvertence or clerical mistake, washing machine has been mentioned in loan documents. The cost of Samsung machine and whirlpool microwave over which the complainant purchased, was the same at that time. Even VAT on these products was same at that time, so the complainant had no loss due to this mistake nor the OP no.4 has gained anything out of it, which may result in unfair trade practice. The complainant wants to get the undue advantage of this mistake, for which, he has twisted the facts of the case to suit his purpose. However, the complainant and his brother never visited the shop of OP no.4 on 06.10.2011 as alleged. Therefore, in order to avoid the payment of loan amount, complainant has made a concocted story. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.5 filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded the CIBIL of the complainant has been rectified vide mail dated 23.09.2019. Despite of that, complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OP no.5. It is further pleaded that on receipt of information from the Assignor on the details of the outstanding dues of the complainant and after going through the contents and checking the records of outstanding forwarded to OPs no.1 and 2 at the time of assignment, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.81550/- due and payable on the basis of records forwarded by the OP no.1. However, on perusal of the records forwarded by the assigner i.e. OP no.1, OP no.5 found some discrepancies, and hence OP no.5 have as an exceptional case, decided to close this loan account without any recovery from complainant. OP no.5 had terminated the account in the system with immediate effect after verifying the records received from the OP no.1. The CIBIL of the complainant has already been rectified by the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/a, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, copy of complaint to S.P., Karnal Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of invoice of microwave oven and delivery Ex.C4, copy of receipt of advance payment Ex.C5, copy of material receipt of time of delivery Ex.C6, copy of notice of Kotak Mahindra qua outstanding payment Ex.C7, copy of cheque list of bank Ex.C8, copy of stop payment request Ex.C9, postal receipt of Police complaint Ex.C10, copy of letter to IDBI Bank Ex.C11, statement regarding cheque clearance of IDBI Bank Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 28.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg Ex.OPW1 to3/A, copy of disbursement memo Ex.OP1-3/A, copy of application form Ex.OP1-3/B, copy of invoice Ex.OP1-3/C, copy of certificate of corporation after change of name Ex.OP1-3/D, copy of trade mark certificate Ex.OP1-3/E, copy of certificate of Incorporation Ex.OP1-3/F,  copy of certificate of commencement of business Ex.OP1-3/G, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1-3/H, copy of reply to email dated 23.09.2019 Ex.OP1-3/I, copy of Deed of Agreement between Bajaj Finance and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ex.OP1-3/J, copy of FIR dated 775 dated 08.05.2023 Ex.OP1-3/K, copy of stay order dated 27.08.2020 in civil suit no.1768/20 Ex.OP1-3/L, copy of order dated 29.07.2020 passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Ex.OP1-3/M, copy of view judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Ex.OP1-3/N and closed the evidence on 06.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for the OP no.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ajay Malik, Proprietor Ex.OP4/A, copy of invoice dated 06.10.2011 for Microwave oven Ex.OP4/1, copy of invoice dated 29.09.2011 for whole sale purchase by dealer Ex.OP4/2, copy of invoice dated 18.12.2010 whole sale purchase by dealer Ex.OP4/3 and closed the evidence on 29.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           OP no.5 tendered no evidence after availing several opportunities including two last opportunities. On 06.06.2023 none has put into appearance on behalf of OP and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 06.06.2023 of the Commission.

11.           We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

12.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 05.10.2011 complainant purchased Whirlpool AT 245 microwave oven. OPs No.2 & 3 allured the complainant to get financed the microwave oven at the rate of zero per cent interest. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- as an advance payment to OP no.1, and submitted demanded documents alongwith 10 signed cheques amounting to Rs.980/- each. After taking the documents and installments cheques, OPs no.1 to 3 assured the complainant that the product would be delivered at his residence after completing the loan formalities in the evening of dated 05.10.2011. When the product was not delivered, then complainant on making remaining amount of Rs.9800/- in cash to OP no.4 take the delivery of product and demanded the documents and cheques back. OPs No.2 to 4 assured the complainant that documents and cheques will be returned very soon. The complainant also gave a written request to the IDBI bank for stop payment of the abovesaid cheques on 29.10.2011. Complainant alongwith his brother visited at the office of Bajaj Finserv Lending Co. at Model Town Karnal personally and met with OPs No.2 to 4 and told them about the installment. Upon which OPs no.2 and 3 replied that the demand call was for recovering of Washing Machine Loan. Complainant never got financed any washing machine from OP no.1. So, the complainant had demanded loan documents, but the request of complainant has been refused by the OPs no.2 and 3. The complainant also received a Notice of Demand for payment of outstanding dues with from OP no.5 on 07.02.2018.  The OP no.5 deliberately entered the details of abovesaid fake loan in CIBIL of the complainant. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

13.          Learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that on 12.10.2011, complainant had purchased a Samsung Washing Machine from OP no.4 by availing a loan of Rs.10,780/- at the rate of 0% interest per annum. OPs have disbursed the loan amount to OP No.4. The said loan account was closed in the records of the OPs and there were no further correspondence of the OPs with that of complainant. It was only when the OPs had received a complaint/escalation from the RBI in 2019 wherein the complainant had raised the issues of the threatening calls/follow up’s made for the payment of the outstanding due towards his loan, the OP considered the loan amount and year of loan, as an exceptional case had discussed with OP no.5 and suggested the OP no.5 to stop all the follow up calls/any other reminder calls which were being made to the complainant for the payment of the outstanding dues. Also, the OP has taken steps to get corrected the CIBIL report of the complainant as well. This fact is evident from the copy of email sent by the OPs to complainant dated 23.09.2019. Moreover, the present complaint is barred by limitation as the loan pertains to the year 2011 and the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2020. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

14.           Learned counsel for OP No.4, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had visited the shop of OP for purchasing of a washing machine or a microwave oven but finally, he purchased a whirlpool microwave oven for Rs.10,800/- on 05.10.2011 in the late hours. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- and rest of the amount of Rs.9800/- was got financed from Bajaj Finserve. The receipt of Rs.1000/- was issued to the complainant by OP no.4. Even the gifts of coupons were also collected by the complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any receipt regarding the payment of alleged amount of Rs.9800/-. Had the complainant paid the amount of Rs.9800/- to the OP, the OP would definitely have issued the receipt for the said amount. The cost of Samsung machine and whirlpool microwave over which the complainant purchased, was the same at that time. Even VAT on these products was same at that time, so the complainant had no loss due to this mistake nor the OP no.4 has gained anything out of it, which may result in unfair trade practice. The complainant wants to get the undue advantage of this mistake, for which, he twisted the facts of the case for his own benefit. However, the complainant and his brother never visited the shop of OP no.4 on 06.10.2011 as alleged. Therefore, in order to avoid the payment of loan amount, complainant has made a concocted story. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           Before going through the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

17.           Limitation for filing a complaint before the Commission has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

 

18.           The alleged loan has been shown to be obtained by the complainant in the year 2011 but as per the version of the complainant he has not availed any loan as alleged by the OPs. He received letter Ex.C7 dated 07.02.2018 whereby OPs demanded the payment of standing loan amount. In order to prove his version, the complainant has placed on file copy of legal notice dated 30.11.2011 Ex.C1, which was issued by him to the OPs No.1 to 3, copy of complaint dated 01.02.2012 Ex.C2 written to S.P. Karnal, regarding cheating by OPs and copy of letter Ex.C7 dated 07.02.2018 whereby demand of payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs.81,550/- has been raised by the OPs. Thus, from the letter Ex.C7 dated 07.02.2018, it is proved that the cause of action has arisen on 07.02.2018. Moreover, the OP has also placed on file email Ex.OP1-3/1 dated 23.09.2019 whereby loan account of the complainant has been stopped and intimation has been sent to the CIBIL Authority, thus, the cause of action has been continued till the year 2019.

19.           As per Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The cause of action in the present case has continued till 23.09.2019 and the limitation to file the present complaint was upto 22.09.2021 but the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission on 30.06.2020.

20.           However, in the year 2020, due to outbreak of Covid-19 in the country, the Appropriate Authority/Government also ordered lockdown in the country, severe restriction were imposed upon the General Public. The  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in writ petition no.3/2020, “Sue Moto” took cognizance of the situation arising out outbreak of Covid-19, in the country and taking into consideration the difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petition etc., within the period of limitation prescribed under the General Law of Limitation or under Special Law, vide order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 held that irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the General Law of Limitation are under Special Law, the said period of limitation shall stand extend w.e.f. 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

21.           Thus, in view of the above Suo Moto writ petition, facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant was having limitation to file the present complaint till 28.02.2022 whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint on 30.06.2020, which is within limitation, thus, the plea taken by the OPs no.1 &3 has no force.

22.           The complainant has alleged that he has purchased a microwave on EMIs on the allurement of OPs No.1 to 3, the complainant purchased the microwave through Bajaj Finserve on installments and gave requisite documents and ten cheques. OP No.4 assured that after completing the formalities of loan, the microwave will be delivered at his residence and when the microwave was not delivered, then the complainant visited the shop of OP No.4 and on paying the entire payment in cash collected the microwave but despite that OPs No.1 to 3 raised demand of loan amount vide letter dated 07.02.2018. 

23.           On the other hand, OPs have alleged that complainant had visited the shop of OP No.4 for purchasing of a washing machine or a microwave oven but finally, he purchased a microwave oven for Rs.10,800/- and got financed the same from Bajaj Finserve but due to mistake in the record of OPs No.1 to 3 wrong product has been mentioned whereas cost of both the products was same, thus, the complainant had not suffered any loss. Furthermore, the said loan account was closed in the records of the OPs and there were no further correspondence of the OPs with the complainant. It was only when the OPs had received a complaint/ escalation from the RBI in 2019 wherein the complainant had raised the issues of the threatening calls/follow up’s made for the payment of the outstanding due towards his loan, the OP considered the loan amount and year of loan, as an exceptional case had discussed with OP no.5 and suggested the OP no.5 to stop all the follow up calls/any other reminder calls which were being made to the complainant for the payment of the outstanding dues. Also, the OP has taken steps to get corrected the CIBIL report of the complainant as well.

24.           The onus to prove his case was upon the complainant. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file copy of invoice Ex.C4 dated 06.10.2011. From the perusal of invoice Ex.C4, it is crystal clear that the complainant had purchased the Whirlpool Microwave by making payment of Rs.10,800/- in cash to the OP No.4. On the said invoice, the complainant also gave the remarks requesting the OP No.4 to return the documents and cheques. From the letter Ex.C7 dated 07.02.2018, it is also crystal clear that the complainant demanded Rs.81,550/- from the complainant as loan amount. Furthermore, the OPs in their written version has also admitted that they have waived of the loan amount of the complainant and also got rectified the CIBIL score of the complainant from the concerned authority. When the complainant being a journalist has suffered a lot due to wrong act of the OPs, then how the OPs deals with a layman. It is not acceptable from an institution/company to do such an illegal/wrong act towards their consumers. Hence, it is proved on record that due to said act and conduct of the OPs, the reputation of the complainant got ruined in the society. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

26.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.10.2024

                                                          President,

                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                             Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)        (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                  Member                       Member