DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.98/2022
Sunil Kumar Mittal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar Mittal
R/o B-179, East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065
….Complainant
Versus
Bank of Baroda
Through its Branch Manager
Subhash Nagar Branch
2/11 & 2/12, Subhash Nagar
New Delhi-110027
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.04.2022
Date of Order : 30.07.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Harshit Kiran for complainant.
Adv. Sougat Sinha along with Adv. Akansha Chugh, proxy counsel for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that complainant took a car loan from Bank of Baroda, hereinafter referred to as OP to purchase a new Audi Q2 SUV Car.
2. It is stated that the complainant made partial payments and obtained a car loan of Rs.18,00,000/- from OP in March, 2021. While obtaining the said loan complainant gave ECS mandate towards payment of EMI of Rs.43,438/- on 22.03.2021. It is stated that in terms of the Loan Agreement the repayment of EMI was scheduled to start w.e.f 01.05.2021 through ECS. However, the complainant noticed from his own passbook statement that EMI for the said month was not transferred up to 10.05.2021. Complainant contacted the branch manager regarding the same and was informed that ‘there was certain technical issues at the end of the bank and as such the ECS could not be processed’.
3. Complainant transferred the first installment of EMI for the month of May, 2021 through NEFT but even for the month of June, 2021 the EMI was not processed by OP. Complainant again spoke to the Branch Manager of OP to which he was again informed on 18.06.2021 that OP was trying its best to resolve the ECS issue. Complainant again made the second installment via NEFT. For the month of July the same thing was repeated and OP only regretted the inconvenience caused and stated that they were doing their best to resolve the issue at the earliest. Meanwhile, the complainant observed that for no fault of his complainant’s CIBIL Score was adversely impacted.
4. After series of communication the credit department of OP Bank forwarded a communication dated 04.08.2021 to the CIBIL data/Credit operations to correct the record of the complainant by inter alia stating-
‘since there has been no default in repayment of EMIs on part of the borrower, we request you to kindly update the CIBIL score of the applicant accordingly so that the borrower may not suffer without being anywhere at fault’.
5. Thereafter the CIBIL score of the complainant was improved partially but to utter shock and surprise of the complainant his CIBIL score was again reduced. Upon enquiry it was learnt that some overdue payment has been shown outstanding in his loan account. Complainant immediately contacted OP to find out as to what outstanding amount was due as all the payments towards the EMI were already cleared. After few days complainant received a telephonic call stating that the outstanding overdue payment was towards the delayed payment of the first four EMIs, which was purely attributable to OP.
6. It is stated that during the whole process the new branch manager of OP was not helpful rather certain disparaging observations were made by him in respect of the financial conduct of the complainant. It is stated that constrained by the conduct of OP, complainant sought foreclosure balance and deposited sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 26.11.2021 in the aforesaid loan account. Despite foreclosing the account complainant was not provided with the security cheques nor was he given the requisite papers for termination of hypothetication in the Motor Vehicle record.
7. Alleging deficiency of service, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay Rs.50,00,000/- for loss of financial reputation, Rs.5,00,000/- for extra financial burden due to early closure of the loan account and Rs.15,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony; to pay interest @18% p.a on the aforesaid amount and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
8. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complaint is bad in law due to non-joinder of parties. Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd (CIBIL) ought to have been made a party in the present complaint.
9. It is submitted that the ECS was not activated due to some technical issue and complainant was requested to remit the EMI through NEFT mode. It is further stated that in good faith OP Bank contacted CIBIL to correct/update the record of the complainant and due to the efforts of the OP Bank the CIBIL score of the complainant rose to 766-770 from 720-730 points.
10. It is next submitted that the overdue payment shown in the loan account is computer generated and bank does not have any role to play. It is further stated that complainant has failed to provide any documentary evidence in respect to prove any actual loss suffered by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant ever approached OP bank to recover the security deposit cheques and the present complaint is filed without any cause of action just to arm twist OP bank to pay huge amounts of money.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
12. Complainant has filed the rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made by the Learned counsels have been heard. Material placed on record is perused.
13. Admittedly, complainant who had obtained a car loan of Rs.18,00,000/- from OP was to pay monthly EMIs of Rs.43,438/- from 01.05.2021, for which complainant had given ECS mandate to OP. Despite giving the ECS mandate, complainant for consecutive three months paid the EMIs via NEFT that too after informing and enquiring from OP. Nothing has been placed on record on behalf of OP to show that due to technical issue complainant’s EMI amount could not be deducted from his account and OP had informed the complainant regarding the same.
14. There is no denying the fact that complainant’s CIBIL score was adversely impacted due to overdue payment being shown in his account. It is noticed that it is due to the default and lapse on the part of OP Bank that there was delay in the payment received from complainant’s account.
15. It is further observed that the complainant who had taken a loan account which was scheduled to be paid within 48 months was finally paid within 08 months due to lapses and harassment of OP Bank. Thus, OP is found to be deficient in service to the extent that despite taking ECS mandate, complainant was made to suffer on account of delayed payments, for no fault of his.
16. The objection of OP with regard to non-joinder of parties is misconceived as complainant’s grievance of not deducting the EMI timely and showing the overdue charges in the account of the complainant is only with OP Bank and CIBIL had just reflected the score of the complainant, which was based on the information provided by OP Bank, therefore CIBIL is not a necessary party in the instant case.
17. Law on the subject compensation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Balram Prasad (Dr.) Advanced Medicare and Research Institute Ltd., Dr. Baidyanth Haldar, Dr. Sukumar Mukharjee Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha as reported in IV [2013) CPJ 1 (SC) is based on the principle of “restitutio in integrum” i.e claimant must receive the sum of money as compensation which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong.
18. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Surender Kumar Tyagi versus Jugat Nursing Home as reported in IV [2010] CPJ 199 (NC) is pleased to hold that compensation has to be reasonable. It is not to enrich the consumer.
19. It is settled that compensation awarded has to commensurate with the harassment on account deficient services. Complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence to show any financial loss on account of the deficient services provided by OP Bank.
20. In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if OP pays Rs.50,000/- towards deficient services within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @4% p.a till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
