Haryana

Karnal

CC/302/2019

Naveen Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sat Pal Singh

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.302 of 2019

                                                         Date of instt. 27.05.2019

                                                         Date of decision:04.11.2019

 

Naveen Verma son of Shri Satpal Verma resident of House no.481, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Bajaj Finserv Ltd. 2^nd floor SCO no.225, Sector -12 near Dominoz Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2. Bajaj Finserv Ltd. Regd. Office Akurdi Pune-411035.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

         

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.  

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present:  Shri Satpal Singh Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs.

                                     

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased one Washing Machine and one Room A.C. from Paras traders Model Town, which was financed by the OPs, vide loan account no.509CCD16281604. The aforesaid loan amount has been paid by the complainant without any delay and default. The said loan amount said to be deducted from the bank account no.31155830387 pertaining to State Bank of India, Karnal every month and nothing is due towards the complainant. On 3.5.2019 the complainant got surprised to see the message of the bank by which an amount of Rs.5932/- (1598/-, 2834/-, 1500/-) has been deducted from the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached in the bank and made enquiry the bank official told that the OPs are deducting the amount from the account in installment regarding loan taken by the complainant from the OPs. After coming to know the complainant approached in the office of the OP no.1 and asked the reason of deduction the amount from his account, but official of the OP no.1 has not paid any heeds towards the genuine request of the complainant, thereafter the complainant sent e-mail dated 4.5.2019 to the office of the OP no.2 and after made enquiry the official of the OPs feel sorry and told the complainant that they have wrongly deducted the amount from the bank account of the complainant. Then OPs refund the amount so deducted by them illegally. The official of the OPs wrongly deducted the amount from the bank account of the complainant, supposed if there was no money in the bank account of the complainant then the official of the OP would declared the complainant defaulter and would also lost the reputed CIBIL of the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs complainant suffered great mental agony, pain and harassment. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; present complaint is misuse of the process of law and court and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Bajaj Finserv Limited is the holding company of “Bajaj Finance Limited” and both are separate entities. The complainant has availed financial assistance from “Bajaj Finance Limited” however, he has not made “Bajaj Finance Limited” as party to the complaint and hence the complaint be dismissed only on this ground. In the absence of the necessary and proper parties, the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed at the very outset.  It is further pleaded that the complainant had taken loan from the OP and as such the relation between the complainant and the OP is that of debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further pleaded that on 31.10.2015 the complainant had purchased a Samsung Washing Machine from the dealer/manufacturer by availing finance of Rs.31,000/- at 0% interest from OP, vide loan account no.(LAN)5090CD16281604 (CD Loan). The said loan was repayable vide 15 regular equated installments of Rs.2067/- each commencing from 5.12.2015. The OP submits that in order to make the timely payment of EMIs the complainant has issued Auto Debit mandate to deduct the EMIs directly from his bank account and as on date the said loan account stands closed. It is further pleaded that amount of Rs.5932/- was deducted from the bank account of the complainant however, the same was refunded back to the complainant on 12.05.2019 itself i.e. before the complainant had filed the captioned complaint before the Court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 20.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 11.10.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant has purchased one Washing Machine and one Room A.C. from Paras traders Model Town, which was financed by the OPs, vide loan account no.509CCD16281604. The said loan amount said to deduct from the bank account no.31155830387 pertaining to State Bank of India, Karnal every month and nothing is due towards the complainant. On 3.5.2019 the complainant because surprised to see the message of the bank by which an amount of Rs.5932/- (1598/-, 2834/-, 1500/-) has been deducted from the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached in the bank and made enquiry the bank official told that the OPs are deducting the amount from the account in installment regarding loan taken by the complainant from the OPs. After coming to know, the complainant approached in the office of the OP no.1 and asked the reason for deducting the amount from his account, but official of the OP no.1 has not paid any heeds towards the genuine request of the complainant, thereafter the complainant sent e-mail dated 4.5.2019 to OPs and after making enquiry, the official of the OPs feel sorry and told the complainant that they have wrongly deducted the amount from the bank account of the complainant. Then OPs refunded the amount so deducted by them illegally. The official of the OPs wrongly deducted the amount from the bank account of the complainant.

7.             The case of the OPs is that the amount of Rs.5932/- was deducted from the bank account of the complainant however, the same was refunded back to the complainant on 12.05.2019 itself.

8.             Admittedly, on 31.10.2015 the complainant had purchased a Samsung Washing Machine by availing Finance of Rs.31,000/- and the complainant had also availed an extended warranty by availing finance of Rs.2384/- from the OPs. It is also admitted as per schedule of loan, all the EMIs were deducted from the account of the complainant. It is also admitted by OPs, that an amount of Rs.5932/-was deducted from the complainant’s bank account, when all the loan amount had been repaid by the complainant in time.

9.             Learned counsel of the OP submitted that on 3.5.2019 Rs.5932/- was deducted due to the in adjacent technical error and the same amount had been refunded back to the complainant on 12.05.2019. The complainant is not liable to get any compensation since the amount has already refunded much before filling the present complaint.

10.            On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP had intentionally deducted the Rs.5932/- on 3.5.2019 when the complainant had already cleared all the loan amount. If the complainant had issued any cheque to anyone, and due to the wrong act of the OP, the said cheque would have became dishonoured and resultantly the complainant would suffer the financially loss, mentally harassed and indulging in the litigation. Learned counsel further submitted as per Ex.C9 the OP, on 31.05.2019 also advised the complainant to maintain the sufficient balance in his account as the EMI is due on 2.6.2019 inspite of clearing all loan amount. This act also proves the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

11.            Admittedly, all the EMIs has been repaid by the complainant in time to the OPs. OPs has deducted the Rs.5932/- from the account of the complainant, when nothing was due against the loan amount. On the request of the complainant, said amount refunded in the account of the complainant. After refunding the said amount and clearing all the loan amount, the OPs again has sent SMS Ex.C9 dated 31.05.2019 to keep the sufficient balance in the account for clearing next EMI on 2.6.2019. Thus, in these circumstances and facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and Rs.2200/-  towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.11.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member