Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-72/2020
Mridul Jain s/o Sh. Narender Kumar Jain
r/o H.No. 1006, Gali Lare Wali,
Maliwara Chandni Chowk,
Delhi G.P.O., North Delhi
Delhi-110006 ...Complainant
Versus
IDFC First Bank
(through its Branch Manager)
11, Ground Floor, Prem Dohil Sadan,
Rajinder Place, Delhi-110008 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 09.10.2020
Date of Order: 06.10.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Vyas Muni Rai
ORDER
1.1. The present complaint has been filed Mr. Mridul Jain (in short complainant) against OP/IDFC First Bank, through its Branch Manager (in short the OP).
1.2. Complainant was approached & induced by the representatives of OP to avail loan for used car. On the inducement of representative of the OP; the complainant applied for loan. The representatives of the OP collected all the documents for further processing of loan. Thereafter, the request for the loan was approved by OP for the amount of Rs. 8,19,999/-. The said loan amount was disbursed to the complainant on 29.08.2018 and the same was to be repaid in 25 monthly installments of Rs. 38,200/- per month at floating rate of 14.5%. The tenure of the loan was for two years commencing from 02.10.2018 and expiring on 02.10.2020.
1.3. For repayment of loan, EMI amounting to Rs. 38,200/- used to be electronically deducted from the bank account of the complainant on 3rd day of every month. The complainant submits that he never defaulted in paying the EMIs. Since the complainant was paying his loan EMIs regularly, thus, the OP approached the complainant in the month of January 2020 and induced him to get loan account closed and offered him a fresh loan having lucrative benefits. The OP assured the complainant that they will adjust the remaining EMIs of the previous loan account bearing no. 17031473 and issued him a fresh loan bearing agreement number 30183354 dated 30.01.2020 amounting to Rs. 6,70,000/-.
1.4. The said loan account was closed by the OP after making all the necessary adjustments towards the balance EMIs for the month of February till October 2020. The complainant was shocked to know that on 04.02.2020, the OP deducted the amount of Rs. 38,200/- as his 17th installment from his account. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP and informed them about the excess EMI wrongly deducted by the OP from his account. However, officials of the OP did not give any satisfactory response.
1.5. Complainant again approached OP in the month of March, 2020 for Redressal of his grievance but in vain. The complainant made several calls on the customer care number of OP but those were not responded. Thus, left with no option, the complainant sent an email dated 02.07.2020 to the OP requesting them to refund the excess EMI amounting to Rs. 38,200/- which was wrongly deducted by the OP but no response was received from the OP.
1.6. The OP on 30.07.2020, responded to the email of complainant dated 02.07.2020. The OP vide email dated 30.07.2020 apologized for the delayed response and inform the complainant that they have initiated the refund of the excess amount which shall be reflected in the complainant’s account in 8 working days.
1.7. Thereafter, when the complainant did not receive the amount, he called the customer care of OP and registered his grievance. The customer care center of OP was telephonically contacted several times but no positive response was received. Subsequent thereof, mails were exchanged between the complainant and the OP to refund the amount but the amount was not refunded even after lodging the written complaint by the complainant.
1.8. The complainant has further submitted that at the time of closure of the said loan, the OP did not furnish the copies of the required documents towards the closure of loan account to the complainant despite several requests. Thus, feeling aggrieved, complainant visited the branch of OP on 03.10.2020 for obtaining necessary documents of the loan document but OP provided only the Loan Account Statement to the complainant on 06.10.2020.
1.9. On receipt of the account statement the discrepancy/ mismatch in the account statement was found. The conduct of the OP amounts to clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony, harassment, torture to the complainant.
1.10. The complainant prays for direction to OP to refund the EMI amount deducted from account of the complainant by the OP along with interest at the rate of 24% pa from the date of deduction till the realization; compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, apart from other relief which Commission deem fit and proper be awarded to the complainant.
1.11. The complaint is accompanied with copy of the loan account statement, copy of letter dated 13.02.2020 issued by OP, copy of email dated 02.07.2020, copy of email dated 30.07.2020, copy of text message received from OP, copy of email dated 14.09.2020 and 16.09.2020, copy of complaint dated 15.09.2020 and copy of application dated 03.10.2020.
2.1. OP has filed reply authored by Sh. Parveen Kumar Yadav, authorized officer of OP. The complainant approached the OP for used car loan and post completion of all necessary formalities, a Loan Agreement was executed with OP for the loan amount of Rs. 8,19,999/-. The said loan was required to be repaid as per details agreed in the sanction letter along with loan agreement. The EMIs amounting to Rs. 38,200/- were to be paid by the complainant in 25 installments between 02.10.2018 and 02.10.2020. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the complainant was made aware about all the terms and conditions of loan agreement and with his due diligence the complainant availed privilege of ECS (Electronic Clear Service) facility.
2.2. As per the ECS mandate services the agreed EMIs were automatically debited from the complainant bank account on the fixed date.
2.3. The complainant not submitted any application requesting the suspension of ECS mandate on or before the month of February 2020 as per the RBI guidelines. Therefore, the agreed ECS payment for closure of the existing loan account and further request for another fresh loan facility with an extended tenure. On completion of all the necessary formalities loan amount of Rs. 6,94,745/- was disbursed to the complainant on 31.01.2020. It is submitted that debit instructions for ECS mandate for the month of February 2020 could not be recalled within the short time frame between the date of foreclosure and the fixed date of automatic debit via ECS. Consequently, the amount got debited from the customer’s account. The complainant reached out to the OP and raised a grievance about erroneously deducted EMI. OP responded vide its email dated 30.07.2020 and informed the complainant that his complaint has been registered and refund for the EMI will be credited back to the complainant’s bank account. OP had tried numerous times to reach out to the complainant for confirming requisite details before the issuance of refund but despite all the calls the OP was unable to connect to the complainant. The refund was initiated to the complainant four times by the OP but the same got bounced due to remarks mentioned as “Account Locked”, and the refund transactions were failed.
2.4. The complainant was requested by the OP for updating details of the bank account in which the refund the refund will be issued but the same was not updated by the complainant. The complainant updated his bank account details by email dated 14.09.2020 to the OP, thereafter, OP issued the refund to the complainant on 30.10.2020 vide UTR no. IDFBH20303712364.
2.5. OP submitted that its office was not completely operational due to ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with the majority of the staff working from home as per the guidelines issued by the government departments.
3. Complainant filed its detailed rejoinder and it denies all the allegations of written statement (except the facts admitted by the OP). The reply by the OP is itself contradictory and an after-thought to escape from its liability. It is denied that the OP tried numerous times to reach out to the complainant for confirming requisite details for the issuance of the refund but despite all the calls, the OP was unable to connect to the complainant. It has also been denied by the complainant that OP assured refund and initiated the process four times but the same got bounced due to remark mentioned as “Account Locked”, and the refund transactions were failed. The complainant was constrained to file the present complaint and after the notice was served upon the OP from this Commission, then only the OP refunded the amount to the complainant in his bank account only to show that there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP. The complainant reiterates the complaint as correct by reaffirming the documents filed with the complaint.
4.1. Complainant led his evidence which is narration and reiteration of the complaint.
4.2. OP has also filed affidavit of evidence under the signature of Sh. Raj Kumar, authorized officer of OP (letter of authorization in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar is filed on record). The affidavit of OP is on the line of reply filed by it.
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. Written argument filed by OP is reiteration and narration of reply. The complainant in his written argument has mentioned that in the month of March 2020 itself, due to the Corona pandemic, national lockdown was imposed, therefore, the functions of the banks were suspended. However, in the month of July, 2020, when the things started coming back to the normal, banks were allowed to operate in their full swing, the complainant made several calls to customer care of OP but his calls were not responded with. Rest of the contentions of the written arguments are on the line of facts and features of the complaint and evidence.
6.1. (Findings)- The contentions of both the parties are considered keeping in view the material on record and the same will be discussed accordingly.
6.2. The complainant is the owner of a shop and deals in cloth business of women and children. The complainant took loan for used car for Rs. 8,19,999/- on 29.08.2018 from OP. Loan amount was to be repaid in 25 monthly installments of Rs. 38,200/- per month for two years w.e.f. 02.10.2018 and expiring on 02.10.2020 at the floating rate of 14.5%.
6.3. The OP assured the complainant to get the remaining EMIs of loan adjusted in new loan, and OP issued fresh loan amounting to Rs. 6,70,000/- (letter dated 30.01.2020 for fresh loan is on record/ CW1/3) and earlier loan account was closed after adjustments towards balance EMIs. However, on 04.02.2020, OP deducted an amount of Rs. 38,200/- as his 17th installment wrongly (detail has been given in para 1.3 of this order). The complainant’s calls to OP’s customer care were not responded. Thereafter, complainant vide email dated 02.07.2020 requested OP to refund the advance EMI of Rs. 38,200/- (CW-1/4). The OP vide its email dated 30.07.2020 informed complainant to refund the excess amount in 08 working days.
6.4. The complainant vide his different emails lodged complaint with OP and also called customer care of OP several times but despite all assurances written and oral from the OP, complainant’s grievance for refund was not resolved. The complainant wrote request application dated 03.10.2020 to the OP to furnish the required documents but documents were not supplied to the complainant except the Loan Account Statement. From the said account’s statement, the discrepancy of unadjusted amount of Rs. 38,200/- was detected.
6.5. OP’s stand in its reply and in affidavit that it tried numerous times to reach out to the complainant for confirming requisite details for the issuance of refund but despite all calls the OP was unable to connect to the complainant. OP further states in its reply and affidavit that refund was initiated to the complainant four times but the same got bounced due to remarks mentioned as “Account Locked and the refund transactions were failed. But complainant has denied all these submissions of OP. This unprofessional practices on the part of OP are nothing but a doctored and concocted device and unsuccessful attempt to cover its wrongs and malpractices. If the OP came to know four times about the remarks “Account Locked” what prevented OP to communicate the same to the complainant. OP has also failed to prove this in the affidavit filed by it.
6.6. It is admitted case of the parties that an EMI of Rs. 38,200/- was wrongly deducted by the OP on 04.02.2020 and OP could only issue the refund to the complainant on 30.10.2020 vide UTR no. IDFBH20303712364, that too, after herculean efforts on the part of the complainant (OP’s admission for refund vide its mail dated 16.09.2020 is CW-1/7).
6.7. OP in its affidavit for evidence alleges it belated stage that copy of complaint furnished to the OP does not contain complete pages of Annexures-CW-1/7 (colly) but OP has failed to prove it as well it was not stage to allege so.
6.8. OP’s contention that due to availed ECS mandate services and the agreed EMI was automatically debited from the complainant’s bank account on fixed date without any wrongful intention, an EMI for Rs. 38,200/- was deducted from the complainant’s bank account does not inspire confidence for OP’s plea. However, amount of Rs. 38,200/- was deducted from complainant’s account on 04.02.2020 and it was reported to OP by the complainant without loss of time. Again in the month of March 2020 complainant approached OP but his grievance was not entertained by OP and said amount was only refunded to complainant on 30.10.2020 after more than seven months period, that too, when complainant ran from pillar to post after several phone calls and emails to OP and after issuance of notice by this Commission on 23.10.2020 after the complaint was admitted. The omission and commission on the part of OP is writ large.
6.9. The OP takes the shelter of Covid-19 pandemic for delay in refund, however, in the month of March 2020 due to Corona pandemic, lockdown was imposed and functions of the banks were suspended but in the month of July 2020 things returned to normalcy and banks were allowed to operate their business. OP took months thereafter to refund the money. Therefore, this plea of OP on this account does not come to its rescue, especially, work of staff was also being done from home.
6.10. The complainant in his affidavit of evidence has proved all the documents filed with complaint while OP has failed to file any document with its reply nor any document has been proved in the affidavit filed by it.
6.11. The complainant relies upon Dr. Param Hans Mishra & Anr. vs ICICI Bank decided on 28.02.2022 by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and relevant paragraphs are reproduced:-
“3. After various requests from different banks, on 2nd February, 2008, the complainants got a loan approved from the HDFC Bank and he subsequently paid the entire outstanding amount due against the 3 loans including the bouncing penalty charges amounting Rs. 3600/- and the pre-payment charges amounting Rs. 60,000/- to the opposite party. Even after the repayment of the all the three loans, the opposite party kept on deducting the EMI from the respective accounts of the complainants. The notice was sent to the opposite party regarding the refund of the EMI which was wrongly deducted from their account but only an amount of Rs. 25000/- out of 30,000/- was refunded by the opposite party. The complainants further stated that despite the repayment of the loan, their name still subsist in the CIBIL for default in making payments. Further, the Complainants had sent various letters to the opposite party demanding to remove their name from CIBIL but no action was taken by the opposite party in this regard.
11. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, came into being in order to protect the interests of Consumers who are effected by the acts of ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 13 C/30/2010 DR. PARAMHANS & ANR. VS. ICICI BANK D.O.D.: 28.02.2022 the service providers, who in order to attract the Consumers, tend to make lucrative offers but when it comes to actually providing the offered services, they take a step back.
18. On perusal of record, it is clear that the complainants got three loan approval from the ICICI Bank amounting Rs. 17,28,000/-, Rs. 8,64,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- with a floating rate of interest of 7 % at the time when loan was sanctioned to complainants which is not disputed from the documents placed on record. It is also evident from the record that the entire amount against the above loans has been paid on 04.02.2008. It is pertinent to mention here that even after repayment of the entire amount due against the said loans, the opposite party kept on debiting the EMI amount from the account of the complainants against which the complainants duly intimated the opposite party regarding the wrong and erroneous deduction of EMI from their account. Responding to the objection for deduction of EMI, the opposite party has refunded an amount of Rs. 25000/- out of Rs. 30000/- and failed to provide any justification for not refunding the remaining amount of Rs. 5000/- which is unfair on the ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 13 C/30/2010 DR. PARAMHANS & ANR. VS. ICICI BANK D.O.D.: 28.02.2022 part of the opposite party. It is further stated by the complainants that their name has been sent to the CIBIL and still exists in the said list for non-payment of the above mentioned loans.
26. In addition to this, the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 13 C/30/2010 DR. PARAMHANS & ANR. VS. ICICI BANK D.O.D.: 28.02.2022 suffered by the complainants. The opposite party shall further pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
Complainant also relies on another case titled Jagdeep Bains vs The Chief Manager, State Bank of India decided on 04.12.2019 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced:-
“4. It is not in dispute that the appellant/ complainant raised loan of Rs. 4 Lakhs from the respondents/ opposite parties for purchasing a vehicle and authorized the Bank to auto deduct monthly installment on 09.08.2010 for a period of 84 months w.e.f. 06.09.2010 i.e. uptill 06.08.2017. As per arrangement letter, interest was to be charged @ 8% p.a. for first year and it was 10% for next two years. Thereafter, interest was to be charged at the then prevailing rate. However, after payment of complete 84 installments, still an amount of Rs. 55,623.96 was shown outstanding by the respondents/ opposite parties against the loan account. On moving an application by the appellant/ complainant on 17.11.2007, the Bank deducted that there was error in the system and an amount of Rs. 43,135.99 was charged in excess.
8. During the course of arguments, when a query was raised by the Bench to the Counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties, he conceded that definitely there is deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Bank as an amount of Rs. 43,145.99 was excessively charged from the appellant/ complainant against the loan amount. He argued that there was system error due to which it all happened.
12. It may be stated here that the appellant/ complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of such baseless pleas raised by the Bank. It is a case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of respondents/ opposite parties where they kept on charging exorbitant rate of interest from the appellant/ complainant despite the fact that her loan amount was supposed to be fully paid till August 2017, when the last 84th installment ended up. Such flimsy and vague replies of system error etc. cannot be expected from a financial institution. Solely putting blame on system, saying that it was a system error cannot be accepted. In our opinion, No Due Certificate dated 13.04.2018, which was sent by the respondents/ opposite parties to the appellant/ complainant by Regd. Post on 21.04.2018, at her residence, could not be said to be sufficient to ignore blatant deficiency in rendering service on their part.
15. In addition to the relief awarded by the Forum vide the impugned order, which already stood complied with by the respondents/ opposite parties, we direct the respondents/ opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant/ complainant towards enhanced compensation, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the respondents/ opposite parties shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 30 days period, till realization.”
7.1. By taking into account the stock of all the circumstances and material on record, it is held that complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency of services against the OP. The complainant’s valid claim for refund of excess deducted EMI of Rs. 38,200/- was not entertained by OP at the earliest possible opportunity. The excess amount aforesaid was deducted by OP on 04.02.2020 which was only refunded on 30.10.2020 without interest. The complainant cannot be deprived for money withheld by OP, of no fault of complainant, he deserves interest at the rate of 8% pa. Thus, complainant is held entitled for interest at the rate of 08% pa (against the claim of 24% interest pa) on the deducted amount of Rs. 38,200/- (in prayer clause of complaint it seems wrongly mentioned as Rs. 38,331/-) from the date of deduction i.e. 04.02.2020 till its realization.
7.2. The complainant also sought damages/ compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and for unfair trade practices; apart from Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. By considering totality of circumstances of the case of both sides damages are quantified as Rs. 15,000/- apart from cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the complainant and against OP.
7.3. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of Rs. 38,200/- from 04.02.2020 till 29.10.2020, besides to pay damages of Rs. 15,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
OP is also directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, the rate of interest (on the amount of Rs. 38,200/-) will be 9% pa instead of 8% pa.
8: Announced on this 6th October, 2023. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
