Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.25/05.02.2018
Smt. Geeta Jain wife of Shri Ashok Jain
r/o Flat no. 9, Nav Shakti Sadan,
Sector-13 Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Complainant
Versus
OP1: IDFC First Bank
Having its office at:
5th Floor, Prem Dohil Sadan,
11, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008
OP2: M/s Rohini Honda,
Having its office at:
A-44, A, Budh Vihar, Phase-I
Main Kanjhawala Road,
Delhi-110086 ...Opposite Party
Order Reserved on: 11.01.2023/15.02.2023
Date of Order: 04.03.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1. Briefly, as per amended complaint, the complainant purchased a scooty for Rs.53,943/- against partly down payment Rs. 21,600/- and remaining amount was financed by OP1 as loan of payable in 12 EMI of Rs.3092/-each. But within fort-night an amount of Rs.6,500/- was called by OP1 as two advance installments amount, which complainant paid against receipt, then EMI reduced to 10 EMI, which complainant had also paid. However, the OP1 claims that still there is outstanding amount and complainant's CIBIL score has been downed by OP1. There is deficiency of services on the part of OP1.
Whereas, OP1 opposed the complaint, the 12th installment of Rs. 3,092/- is still outstanding as the complainant got stopped payment of that installment, which result into interest and other charges. There is no deficiency of services on the part of OP1.
1.2 : Initially OP1 was Capital First Limited, however, on the eve of amalgamation of Capital First Limited into M/s IDFC First Bank Ltd., the name of M/s IDFC First Bank Ltd. was permitted to be substituted in place of original OP1 vide order dated 15.02.2023.
2.1 The factual matrix is that on 31.07.2015 the complainant purchased a Activa Scooty, Make Honda, for
Rs.53,943/- from dealer/OP2 Rohini Honda. The Complainant made down payment of Rs. 21,600/- against receipt ( page no. 5 of paper-book) and rest of the amount was loaned from Financer OP1 [then known as Capital First Limited] vide auto loan No. 3829990 payable in 12 EMI. It was 12.08.2015, when the complainant received telephone call from executive of OP1 asking Rs. 6,500/- being for
two advance installments and rest amount will be payable in 10 EMI. Thus, the complainant paid Rs.6500/-against receipt dated 12.08.2015 (page no.-6 of paper-book). As per terms and conditions of the OP1 apart from the above
said two installments, Since the complainant was to pay the amount in
ten monthly equal installments. which she paid within time scheduled (copy of passbook showing all the payments is at page no. 7-12 of paper-book). Actually, she paid more than loan amount which is also shown in her bank account statement. However, OP1 demanded one extra EMI along with costs from the complainant despite all payment, it is contrary to the guideline of RBI. The complainant had approached OP1 and OP2 with all record (letters are at page no. 14 & 15 of the paper-book) but
they were not willing to listen and help the complainant.
Moreover in last
quarter of 2015, the OP1's Executive left OP2/Rohini Honda. It is learned that the OP2/Rohini
Honda has dissolved its association with OP1 because of increased number of frauds and dissatisfactions of customers by OP1. The complainant's husband visited OP1's Registered office
at Rajendra Place for necessary assistance, however, they were least bothered & cooperative, they were even not willing to listen to grievances of the complainant, he was kept awaited for long hours and were not cooperating In all these hours the complainant had been receiving calls from OP1's executives to pay extra amount of Rs.7692/- towards loan
a/c 3829990. Moreover, the executives of PO1 were speaking rudely, they harassed her repeatedly and even called at odd times. Some female executives even
abused and threatened to call police to get the complainant arrested.
2.2 The complainant also got a call from Mumbai Head Office of OP1 and they enquired about the complete case and after
knowing the facts and details of the case, the complainant was advised not
to pay even a single penny to OP1, it was also assured that the Complainant will not receive any further calls from
OP1 but it was for a couple of days and
thereafter again calls were started by OP1.
A complaint was also filed with OP1's Customer Care but no reply till date.
2.3 Because of these acts of OP1, CIBIL score of the
complainant has been put to down. Whereas, that the complainant was holding a
Bajaj EMI Card and she has very good track record but when the
complainant approached for loan, it was refused as if she
lacks good record with OP1. The complainant could not get loan from any financial institution despite she never made defaulted OP1. That is why the complaint to (1) direct the OP1 to correct the CIBIL record of the
complainant and issue NOC in favour of the complainant, (2) direct OP1 & OP2 jointly and severally pay
compensation to the complainant of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental and
physical harassment and agony suffered by the complainant for the
past 3 years at the instance of OP 1 and OP2.
3.1 Whereas, OP1 opposed the complaint that it is contrary to law, complaint is filed without clean hands, complainant herself is at default, she failed to clear the outstanding amount. It is an attempt by complainant to gain wrongfully from the OP1, even though the complainant herself has an outstanding liability towards the OP1. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the OP1.
The actual facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Honda Activa Scooty from the OP2, which was financed by the OP1. A loan agreement was executed between the OP1 and the complainant. AS per its terms & conditions, the amount of the loan was to be repaid by 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,092/- each, with covenant if the installments are not paid within due period, the complainant shall be liable to pay delayed payment, enhanced as well as penal interest apart from the principal sum overdue. There is default by the complainant in making the payment of EMIs and consequently the complainant was subjected to extra penal charges as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As on 12.04.2018, the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7692/- which is inclusive of the principal outstanding amount, penal charges and other overdue payment as per the statement of account. This amount is the legally recoverable
from the complainant which the complainant alleges without any basis as deficiency of service . It is frivolous and vexatious consumer complaint. As per the statement of account dated 12.04.2018, it is clearly reflecting that the 12th installment has been bounced with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" which shows the mala-fide of the complainant. The complainant was informed and requested several times to clear the outstanding amount but she failed. That the CIBIL report could be updated only after the complete payment is made by any borrower, and the account is closed. However, the complainant failed to clear the outstanding amount and thus the CIBIL report can only be updated after the complainant clears her outstanding liability. OPI has filed statement of account and foreclosure letter with the reply. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.2: The OP2 was served with notice with complaint, however, it failed to cause appearance, it was proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 05.06.2018. The OP2 is show-room from where the scooty was purchased by the complainant.
3.3: The complainant filed the rejoinder and she denied the allegations of reply by reaffirming the contents of complaint as correct that there was down payment on 31.07.2015, then payment of Rs. 6,500/- of two advanced installments on 12.08.2015 and thereafter all the remaining ten installments were paid, each installment was of Rs. 3,092/-, there was nothing outstanding against the complainant and OP1 has made wrong averments.
4.1. The complainant led her evidence by detailed affidavit, it is as per the contents of complaint as well as documents filed.
4.2. Similarly, OP1’s Shri Munish Kumar Pathak, authorized signatory (of the then M/s Capital First) filed the detailed affidavit, along with letter of authority, statement of account and foreclosure letter, which were filed with the reply (as Annexure A1,page 1 to 5 ( colly).
5.1. At the stage of final argument, the complainant filed written arguments and it was followed by written notes in the form of tabulation of details of payment, to reiterate the contentions led in evidence.
5.2 On the other side, the written arguments filed are also based on reply to complaint as well as affidavit of evidence.
5.3. It was followed by oral submission by Ms. Sweta Saini Advocate (DLSA) for complainant and on the other side, firstly Ms. Lakapa, Advocate for OP, then Shri B.J. Thakur, Advocate and then/ lastly Shri S.P. Das, Advocate, made submission on behalf of OP1. Some clarifications were also sought and the same are explained by Shri S.P. Das, Advocate for OP1 and Ms. Sweta Saini, Advocate for complainant today.
6.1 (Findings): The contentions of both the parties are considered, analysed and assessed. It does not require to reproduce their submission as the same will be dealt at appropriate stage.
6.2. On analysis of pleadings and record, there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased Activa scooty against invoice of Rs. 53,943/- from the office/ show-room of OP2, where complainant paid Rs. 21,600/- as down payment on 31.07.2015 and another payment on demand of Rs. 6,500/- on 12.08.2015, the receipt issued by Rohini Honda/ OP2 were endorsed by it that it pertains to finance loan by OP1. There is no dispute about receipt of further installment from the complainant, to that effect statement of account/ passbook also filed by the complainant.
6.3. However, the dispute is by the OP1 that payment of one installment was not received and balance amount is still outstanding, which is payable with other charges since payment was got stopped by the complainant. However, according to complainant all 12 EMI were paid by way of 02 advance EMI on 12.8.2015 and remaining 10 EMI month-wise (paid from 05.10.2015 to 05.07.2016, also shown in pass-book).
Both the parties were enquired about loan amount and as to when installment would begin, since copy of agreement was not placed on record by the OP. However, the OP1 relies upon Annexure-1 (page no. 1 to 4) being account lodger of complainant that the loan amount was Rs. 35,000/- and each installment was of Rs. 3,092/- and total installment were payable were 12 EMI commencing from due dates 05.9.2015 to 05.08.22016. On the other side, complainant also confirms that initially down payment was made, the total installments were 12 EMI of Rs. 3,092/-, however, the complainant was asked by OP2 to give two advanced installment for a lump sum amount of Rs. 6,500/- which she paid against receipt, consequently after adjustment of two advanced installment, the remaining installments were 10 EMI of Rs. 3,092/- each to be paid from 05.10.2015 against due date of 05.09.2015.
6.4. In the light of documentary record filed by the parties as well as the oral narrations, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i). The Activa scooty was purchased against retail invoice for Rs. 53,943/- ( which includes basic price of Activa, Vat, insurance charges, hypothecation charges, smart card charges, apart from registration fee and road tax charges). The vehicle was sold by OP2.
(ii). The complainant initially paid Rs. 21,600/- to OP2 on 31.07.2015 and remaining amount was financed by OP1. When the vehicle was bought and the balance amount was financed by OP1, at that stage, it was determined that balance amount would be payable in 12 EMI of Rs. 3,092/- each.
(iii). On 12.08.2015, the complainant was asked by OP2 to pay two advanced installment, she was asked to deposit Rs. 6,500/-, which she also deposited against receipt dated 12.08.2015. Although, on calculations, the amount of two installments is Rs. 3,092/-x 2 = Rs. 6,184/- ( but complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 6,500/-, which is more than Rs.6,184/-).
After deposit of this amount of Rs. 6,500/- or two installments in advance of Rs. 3,092/- each, the question arises what would be number of remaining EMI whether 12 or 10? The simple answer is 10 EMI/installments.
(iv). However, EMI were payable to the financer/OP1 but the advanced amount of Rs. 6,500/- of two installments was called and deposited with the OP2, how complainant would be escaped from her liability towards OP1? The answer of this query lies in the Annexure-A/ Statement account of OP1, which is in the name of customer/ complainant Geeta Jain. At the second page of this statement, OP1 had received an amount of Rs. 3,092/- on 31.08.2015, it is shown at the credit of account of complainant (as amount receipt without referred EMI number, as adjustment done through dealer), although the EMI was due on 05.09.2015. It shows that OP2 had received the amount against the receipt and it was also forwarded to the OP1 by the OP2 and that is why it was shown in the credit of complainant, however, the amount shown is of Rs. 3,092/- and not of Rs. 6,184/- (of two installments or of Rs. 6,500/-) vis-à-vis in the receipt of Rs. 6,500/- of 12.08.2015, there is an endorsement by OP2 in the name OP1 [Capital First] along with remark against balance payment.
(v). It was an inter-se arrangement between the OP1 and OP2 with regard to down payments and financial transaction, while lending the amount by financer/ OP1 to the complainant-borrower in respect of the vehicle sold by OP2. Since the complainant had paid the two installments in advance and OP2 had received it against receipt, if the OP2 has not sent the complete amount of two installments but of only one installment in advance on 31.08.2015 to OP1, the complainant cannot be blamed there-for.
(vi). The complainant had paid the down payment of Rs. 21,600/-at the time of buying the vehicle and then for repaying loan amount, 12 installments were to be paid, two of them were paid on 12.08.2015 and the remaining installments were left to be 10, which she had also paid regularly month by month from 05.10.2015 to 05.07.2016, duly reflected in the statement of account.
(vii). The circumstances and record discussed in paragraph (i) to (vi) above clearly demonstrates that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP1 that despite payment of entire amount, the complainant was treated badly by asking the amount despite all EMI were paid and she was not supposed to pay any extra amount beyond agreed upon but asked by OP1 to pay so, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP1.
Simultaneously, the record is established by complainant of initial down payment on 31.07.2015 and two advanced installments ;paid on 12.8.2015 by a lump sum amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the OP2, however, there was adjustment of accounts between OP1 and OP2, which OP1 is also showing advance payment of Rs. 3,092/- in the account of complainant; the OP2 was supposed to render total amount of two advanced EMI received to OP1 vis-à-vis if there is inter-se arrangement and adjustment between the OP2 and OP1, for that complainant cannot be made to suffer; there is also deficiency of services on the part of OP2.
7.1. In view of the conclusion drawn in paragraph no. 6 above, the complainant has succeeded to establish the complaint against OP1 and OP2. It is but natural that making down of the CIBIL score in the finance world matters a lot for economic relations and the present complainant suffered on account of OP1 and OP2 in respect of one installment, which could not be reconciled by OP1 and OP2 on their part despite the complainant had followed the financial discipline to repay the entire loan amount by EMI.
7.2. The complainant deserves directions against OP1 to correct the CIBIL score record of complainant and to inform the complainant about correction of such CIBIL record apart from issuing appropriate letter to this effect, in favour of complainant.
7.3. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against OP1 and OP2 for suffering mental and physical harassment for the last 3 years prior to filing of complainant in Febrary 2018. Considering all aspects as well as the trauma she had suffered, the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP1 and OP2 to pay it jointly and severally. The complainant also claims such other relief, thus award of litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- in her favour and against OP1 and OP2 will justify both sides.
8.1: Accordingly, this complaint is disposed off while directing OP1 to correct the CIBIL score record of complainant as nothing is outstanding against the complainant and also inform the complainant about correction of such CIBIL record apart from issuing appropriate letter to this effect, in favour of complainant. 8.2 :The OP1 and OP2 are directed to pay jointly and severally the compensation Rs. 20,000/-and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to complainant in compliance of order within its letter and spirit within 30 days from the receipt of this order, In case the amount of compensation and litigation cost is not paid within 30 days, then OP1 and OP2 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% pa from the filing of the complaint till the date of its realization.
9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per Regulations.
10: Announced on this 4th day of March, 2023 [फागुन 13, साका 1944].
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
