Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/15/2020

Bipin Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC First Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Devinder Kumar

08 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	15/2020
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	08.09.2020

 

                                       

                       

 

Bipin Singh s/o Sh.Ram Charitar Singh aged 57 years r/o H.No.164, Haloomajra, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

IDFC First Bank, SCO No.47, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant
	OP exparte.

 

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that on 18.05.2019 he approached M/s Meena Electronics, Shop No.592, Main Market, Hallomajra, Chandigarh for purchase of mobile phone who allured him that in case he availed the loan for purchase then he has to pay Rs.5,000/- as down payment and the remaining amount was to be financed on zero per cent interest.  Accordingly, he purchased the mobile phone vide invoice dated 18.05.2019 for Rs.19,990/- by paying Rs.5,230/- as down payment and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.13,760/- was financed by OP and the same was to be paid in six EMIs of Rs.2249/-  starting from 02.07.2019. He was also informed that he could pay the installment/EMI in advance to the OP.  It has further been averred that he paid the first installment on 07.06.2019 instead of 02.07.2019 (Annexure C-3).  Subsequently, he paid the remaining five installments of Rs.2249/- to the OP in advance prior to due dates vide receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-8).  It has further been averred that even after making the entire payment, the OP was sending message to pay the balance installment and as such he approached the OP and handed over the receipts and requested it to issue the NOC.  However, the OP instead of issuing the NOC directing him first to pay a sum of Rs.6372/- as total POS, bounce and penal charges etc.  It has further been averred that there was no default on his part and no further installment was to be paid by him to the OP but despite this, the OP was not issuing the NOC and rather started demanding the bouncing charges and late fee which are not payable by him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.03.2020.
3.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In his exparte, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit along with the documents Annexures C-1 to C-11  in support of his case.  He has also deposed in his affidavit that he had paid all the installments to the OP in advance prior to the due date(s) and there was no default  on his part from the date of disbursement of the loan.  He has further deposed in his affidavit that instead of issuing the NOC, the OP started directing him to first pay a sum of Rs.6,372/- as total POS, bounce charges and penal charges etc.  In our considered view when, the complainant had paid all the installments in advance prior to the due date(s) to the OP then the question of paying the total POS, bounce charges and penal charges does not arise.  
5.          Besides this, the evidence produced on record by the complainant remained un-rebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the opposite party to contest the complaint nor any person on behalf of the opposite party dared to file reply to rebut the case of the complainant. In this view of the mater, after receipt of the loan amount, non-issuance of the NOC by the OP to the customer amounts to deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice on its part.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To issue NOC in respect of the loan in question to the complainant forthwith.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.2,100/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.

7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 08/09/2020	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER