Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/559/2022

Nirdosh Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/559/2022
Date of Institution	:	30.5.2022
Date of Decision	:	14/12/2023

 

Nirdosh Thakur son of Sh. Mohinder Singh r/o House No.868, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Bajaj Finserv, SCO No.57-58-59, 1^st and 2^nd floor, opposite Hotel Taj, near Oyster Hotel, Sector 17-A, Chadnigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. RBL Bank Limited SCO No.135-136, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant on the allurement of the OPs obtained credit card of OPs having credit card number ending with 2606  and the complainant was paying the monthly bill regularly. On 26.12.2020 through email the OPs offered  personal loan of Rs.1,03,000/-  to the complainant  with EMI amount of Rs.9789.55 and on the  assurances of OPs the complainant availed the said loan but on 3.2.2021 the OPs demanded first EMI of Rs.12,828/- against the actual EMI of Rs.9789.55. The complainant immediately took the matter with the OPs and requested to resolve the issue but nothing was done by the OPs.  Thus the complainant decided to close the loan and the OPs intimated the complainant that as on date  a sum of Rs.1,13,034.93 is due against credit card ending with number 1676.  The complainant accordingly paid the said amount and requested the OPs to issue NOC  qua credit card number ending with 1676.  But the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. However instead of issuing NOC the OP vide email dated 3.1.2022  asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.9090/- . The complainant under the impression that the said outstanding is against the earlier credit card ending with number 2606 deposited the aforesaid amount on 4.1.2022 against credit card ending with number 2606. But the OP again vide email dated 7.1.2022 demand Rs.9090/-. On enquiry by the complainant the OP intimated that Rs.9090/- is due towards credit card ending with number 1676. On this complainant intimated the Op that he has made full and final amount to the Op on 6.2.2021 towards the said credit card and nothing is due against the said credit card. It is alleged that despite repeated request made by the complainant the OPs did not resolve the issue and the excess amount was not refunded to the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that complainant has availed various loans from the answering OP and as on date all the loan accounts are closed.  NOC’s are issued and as such question of rectification  of CIBIL does not arise at all  and moreover there are no specific allegations raised against OP No.1. It is averred that the complainant is aggrieved by the act and  conduct of OP No.2 and not of  the answering OP. Thus the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied being wrong.
3. Opposite Party No.2 in its  reply stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission that he is using two credit cards  facility at the same time. It is vehemently  denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the answering OP. It is averred that the complainant never visited or raised his concern to designated official for inability to credit card usage. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
4.  No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their case, complainant and OP No.1 tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents. However, as OP No.2 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 5.4.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that the OPs have wrongly charged excess amount of Rs.9090/- from the complainant despite of closing his account after paying the entire amount.
8. It is evident from Annexure C-2 copy of email by OPs to the complainant that they have sanctioned loan of Rs.103000/- at EMI of Rs.9789.55 at flat rate of interest @14.05%/25%.
9. Annexure C-4 is the email at page 13 of the paperbook by the OPs seeking overdue amount Rs.12828.05  from the complainant. The allegations of the complainant  is that the demand raised by the OPs was more than as asked vide Annexure C-2. Further as per Annexure C-5 (the account statement)  the complainant paid an  amount of Rs.1,13,034.93 to OP No.2 on 6.2.2021 as full and final payment but the OP vide email Annexure C-6 again demanded Rs.9089.66 as overdue amount from the complainant and the complainant under the wrong impression that the said demand of the OPs is against another account, paid the said amount but later on when the complainant realized that he has already settled the said account, he time and again requested the OPs to refund the excess amount paid  but no result of the repeated requests.
10.  In our opinion,  when the complainant has already settled the whole account in dispute on 6.2.2021 then asking for another amount of Rs.9089 after lapse of approximately one year on 3.1.2022  by the OPs itself is sufficient to prove deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part particularly when  the OP No.1 through its written statement has mentioned that all the accounts of the complainant are closed and there is no dispute pending qua any of the account  of the complainant. Hence, the act of the Ops by not refunding excess amount charged by them to the complainant caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and they are liable to refund the same. 
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.9090/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of receiving the same till onwards and also issue NOC to the complainant with regard to the disputed accounts if already not issued. 
2. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member