Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/103

Kiran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Uppar - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Apr 2022

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                103 of 2020

Date of Institution :     22.07.2020

Date of Decision :       11.04.2022

Kiran wife of Harcharan Singh r/o House No.BXII-95/2A, Street No. 6 (Mohinder Romana Advocate Wali Gali), Faridkot District Faridkot.                                   

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Finserv Upper Building (Second Floor) of ICICI Bank/Indusan Bank, Circular Road, (Near Bus Stand), Faridkot through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Corporation Bank/Now Union Bank of India, College Road, Faridkot, through its Branch Manager.
3. Gaurav Communications, The Mall Road, Near Punjab & Sind Bank, Faridkot through Proprietor/Partner.

....Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

Present:      Sh Smt Kiran/ complainant in person,    

                  Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to deduct wrong penalties imposed by them and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in August, 2019, complainant purchased one L.E.D. from OP-3 against bill no.1677 dated 04.08.2019 after availing loan from OP-1/Bajaj Finserv, Faridkot and it was agreed to return the loan in 14 instalments of Rs.2495/-each for every month through the bank account of complainant in Union Bank of India/Op-2. It is submitted that OP-1 withdrew seven instalments from his account through OP-2. It is pertinent to mention here that due to lockdown, there was not sufficient amount in her account and therefore, during the months of April and May, 2020, she deposited the payment of instalment to OP-1 through online

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

mode and thereafter, amount of instalments is being regularly withdrawn by OP-1 through OP-2 from the bank account of complainant. It came to the notice of complainant that OP-1 has planted bounce/penalty charges of Rs.1249/-and OP-2 has charged Rs.1416/-as penalty charges for the months of April to July. OP-1 also issued letter dated 16.06.2020 to complainant in this regard. It is further submitted that wrong penalties have been imposed by OP-1 and OP-2. Further submitted that out of 14 instalments, payment for eleven instalments has already been paid by her and she is still ready to deposit the amount due towards remaining instalments. Complainant made several requests to OPs to not charge these penalties, but all in vain. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to deduct the penalty charges and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.07.2020,

 

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is filed on false and vague allegations. It has been filed with malafide intensions and is based on wrong information and facts. Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. There is no reason for complainant to file the present complaint. No cause of action arises against answering OPs. It is averred that letter dated 16.06.2020 was issued by OP-1 and it pertains to deduction of Rs.236/- by OP-2 bank from the bank account of complainant towards cheque bouncing charges as complainant failed to maintain the sufficient balance in his account and these charged were deducted by his banker and not by answering OP. Complainant has levelled false allegations only to earn easy money and to harass the answering OPs. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and admitted that complainant purchased LED in question from OP-3 by availing loan from answering OP at 0% interest and she was to pay Rs.2495/-as EMI for 18 months. It is also admitted that complainant was

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

making payment of instalment regularly but in the month of April and May, due to insufficient balance in his account, his EMI bounced and thus, bouncing charges of Rs.450/-were levied and tenure of his loan also increased to 19 months. Owing to delay in honouring the EMIs for the month of April and May, 2020 at due dates, complainant was required to pay bouncing charges of Rs.900 i.e 450/-each for two months and additional interest of Rs.279/- for the moratorium granted by OP i.e Rs.70/-were adjusted by answering OP and in order to close his loan account, complainant is required to pay the balance EMIs. It is further averred that instead of collecting the alleged charges on respective due dates, bank of complainant has collected these charges on subsequent dates as per its convenience and this fact can also be verified from the bank transaction entries wherein OP has specifically mentioned the mandate failure dates. Therefore, answering OP is not liable to pay any compensation as there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

5                                             On receipt of the notice sent by Commission, OP-2 appeared and filed application before this Commission wherein it has been stated that complainant availed a loan from Bajaj Finserv and Bajaj Finserv had

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

demanded instalment of loan through online/ECS. The instalment amount was not available in her account and charges have been debited from her account due to lodged demand by Bajaj Finserv. Thereafter, OP-2 never appeared in this Commission either in person or through counsel nor filed any reply or affidavit. Therefore, vide order dated 01.12.2021, Op-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                      Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3. On receipt of notice, OP-3 appeared in person but despite availing sufficient opportunities neither appeared in the Commission in person or through counsel nor filed reply any reply by himself or through counsel and therefore, vide order dated 31.12.2020, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shivani Garg, Authorized

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

Representative of Bajaj Finance Ltd Ex OP-1/1, documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/7 and then, closed the same.

9                                                    We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                       It is admitted case of the parties that complainant availed loan of Rs.44,900/-from OP-1 and it was to be completed in 18 instalments. From the Ex C-5 which is copy of bill dated 04-08-2019, it is noticed that Finance Company lent the amount of Rs.44,900/-to complainant for purchase of said LED. Complainant agreed to pay the same and accordingly, she was regularly making payment as per demand of OP-1 on 2^nd of every month. There is no delay in paying EMI by complainant. Complainant has submitted that during the months of April, 2020 and May, 2020, there was not sufficient balance in her account and therefore, she made payment of EMI to the employee of OP-1 in cash for which she has placed on record documents Ex C-3and Ex C-4 that are copies of messages sent by OP-1 to complainant for receipt of payment of EMI towards her loan account. Allegation of the

 

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

complainant is that OPs have unnecessarily deducted bounce charges and imposed false penalties which she is not liable to pay.

11                                        Now, plea taken by OP-1 that complainant did not maintain sufficient minimum balance has no concern with them. Moreover, during the covid period, there had been huge recession throughout the world  and due to closing of business and other income resources, all have to go through economic downfall and in these circumstances, as per government instructions OPs should not have presented the cheque of complainant for payment on due date, rather they should have kept the same with them.

12                                            There is no doubt that amid covid period, it was very difficult to survive and even during this period of huge deadly pandemic, complainant managed to deposit the equal monthly instalments for the month of April and may with OPs. Though as per messages, EMIs were paid with delay, but complainant has shown her integrity  towards her liability against loan taken by her by making payment of outstanding instalment in same month. On the other hands, act of OPs in imposing bouncing and other charges even during the moratorium period is quite inappropriate and is against the instructions of government. Thus, OPs have no right to further charge more interest over this

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

amount. Moreover, contention of the complainant is that instalment for the month of April and May, 2020 was paid by her to the employee of OP-1 and messages regarding receipt of same are duly sent by OP-1. Messages Ex C-3 dated 16.04.2020 and message Ex C-4 dated 12.05.2020 issued by Bajaj Finance Ltd placed on record by complainant are sufficient to prove the allegations of complainant. Now, the messages sent by OP-1 themselves prove on the record that complainant had made payment of instalments then, in view of instructions issued by Government regarding payment of transactions and non payment of EMI on all kinds of loans, charges deducted by OPs and penalty imposed by Bank on outstanding amount, have no  relevance in the eyes of law  as there is no break in payment of instalments as EMIs are paid in the same month in which these become due and their act of imposing penalty and bouncing charges is totally illegal. Thus, bouncing charges and other charges levied by bank is totally incorrect. OPs have done trade mal practice in dealing with their customer by breaching the covid instructions issued by government of India. Bank has admitted before the Commission that charges have been debited from the account of complainant due to demand lodged by Bajaj Finserv.

 

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

13                                              Act of OPs in debiting bouncing charges and imposing penalty is totally wrong and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence and all documents produced by her are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. OP-1 could not prove its version in the light of documents Ex C-3 and Ex C-4 that contradict the pleadings taken by OP-1 in their written reply.

14                                                In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant. It is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in imposing false bouncing charges and penalty over amount of EMI paid by complainant as per messages Ex C-3 and Ex C-4 and is contrary to the covid instructions issued by  government of India. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby accepted against OP-1 with direction to it to refund the bouncing charges and other charges charged by bank and to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made by OP-1 within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section

cc no. 103 of 2020

71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is noticed that OP-3 has no role in imposing bouncing charges and penalty and moreover, OP-2 Bank has also debited the said amount from the account of complainant on instructions from OP-1. Therefore, complaint against OP-2 and OP-3, stands hereby dismissed. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission on

Dated : 11.04.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                        Member                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no. 103 of 2020

Kiran    Vs   Bajaj Finserv

 

Present:      Sh Smt Kiran/ complainant in person,    

                  Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and  complaint against OP-2 and OP-3, stands hereby dismissed. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission on

Dated : 11.04.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                        Member                        Member