Haryana

Ambala

CC/252/2021

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Finance Limted - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	252/2021
Date of Institution	:	16/08/2021
Date of decision	:	05.06.2023

 

Om Prakash S/o Shri Ditta Ram, aged about 41 years, resident of Village Sarangpur, Post Office Dhurkada, Tehsil and District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. M/s Bajaj Finance Limited, Office of Prem_Nagar, Ambala City (Insurer party).
2. Corporation Bank Kurukshetra, at present merge with Union Bank of India, Kurukshetra, Red Road, New Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Sector-17, Near Bus Stand, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
3. Bassi Electronics Court Road, Ambala City through its Authorized Signatory (Seller party);

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Shri U.S. Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2 and 3 ex parte vide order dated 16.12.2021.                     

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount illegally deducted from the account of the complainant;
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment
3. To pay cost of litigation 

                                                OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased two new Fridges from OP No.3 of Samsung company for an amount of Rs.12,000/- on 16-08-2019 and Rs.16,000/- on date of 04-10-2019 for which it gave raw receipts. The complainant gave Rs.1,000/- out of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- out of Rs. 16,000/- in cash to OP No.3.  Both the said fridges were got financed from OP No.1. The installments of Rs.12,000/- were fixed in eight installments of Rs.1682/- and the installments of Rs.16,000/- were fixed in nine installments of Rs.1556/-. The installments were deducted from the bank account of the complainant starting from on 02-11-2019 and five installments each of both the fridge were deducted from the bank account of the complainant maintained by OP No.1.   However, thereafter, there was a sudden lockdown in whole of India due to corona pandemic and OP No.1 has been collecting installments from the house of the complainant by putting pressure on him and thus he paid the installments. Thereafter, NO Dues Certificate dated 16-01-2021 qua both the fridge was issued by OP No.1. However, when the complainant, deposited an amount of Rs.17,550/- in his bank account with OP No.2, an amount of Rs.13,050/- stood deducted by OP No.2. On enquiry no satisfactory answer was given by the OPs.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint against OP No.1 is false, frivolous and filed with malafide intention; the  complainant has not come with the clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Commission; the complainant had taken loan from the OP No.1 and as such the relation between the Complainant and the OP No.1 is that of debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider;  there is no cause of action against the OP No.1 etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has been an existing customer of the OP No.1 and has availed various loans in the past, out of which few are closed and few are active. However, with regards to the disputed Loan account, the complainant had purchased a Refrigerator from OP No. 3 and accordingly availed a loan from OP No.1 at 0% interest. The said Loan however as on date stands closed. The complainant had issued NACH Mandate/ Auto Debit for the repayment of the installments and had issued the Banking details of the OP No: 2 i.e. his banker for the repayment of the installments, however as per the records, the complainant is a defaulter and has not paid the EMI's of few installments on time, hence Auto Debit/ NACH mandate presented by OP No.1 for collection of EMIs were returned unpaid by the complainant's banker and bouncing charges have been levied by OP No.1. However to avoid paying the bouncing charges, the complainant has paid the EMI's in advance in the subsequent months. The complainant was granted moratorium for the months of April and May 2020. Owing to the policies of the Suo-Moto Moratorium to the complainant at the end of respective months in view of the master circulars laid down by the Reserve Bank of India on Covid- 19 Regulatory Package dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020, as a result of which his EMI's for the month of April and May 2020 have been rescheduled and the existing tenure of the loan was increased to 12 months. Also, additional interest for the moratorium granted has been levied to the loan account of the complainant which is in accordance with the master circulars of RBI on Covid-19 Regulatory Package. OP No.1 had duly sent the reminders to the complainant on his registered mobile number before the EMI due dates reminding him to maintain sufficient balance in his respective bank account. However, the complainant failed to maintain the sufficient balance in his account. As per the usual practice, if any customer is not maintaining sufficient balance in his/her bank account and his/her loan EMI cheque/auto debit mandate not being honored then the said customer has to pay the bouncing charges to banker where he/she maintains the savings bank account and to the creditor from whom he/she has availed loan. Instead of collecting the alleged charges on respective due dates, the Bank of the complainant has collected these charges on subsequent dates as per its convenience. However, no excess deductions have been made by OP No.1.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it with costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.2 and 3, before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.12.2021.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shivani Garg, Manager Legal of OP No.1-Bajaj Finance Limited as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant on the date of arguments, as such, we have heard the learned counsel for OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the contentions raised in its written version submitted that since the dispute if any has been raised by the complainant qua the amount deducted by OP No.2 from his saving bank account and no allegations have been leveled qua the NOC issued by OP No.1, as such, as such, complaint against OP No.1 deserves to be dismissed.
8.           It is coming out from the record that against the loan obtained by the complainant from OP No.1 for purchase of the said fridges from OP No.3, he had obtained No Dues Certificate Annexure C-2 from OP No.1 clearly mentioning therein that BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. has received complete payment including all applicable charges towards the CONSUMER DURABLE against loan agreement of the complainant and that no further amount is payable by  him to OP No.1.  It is significant to mention here that it is also an admitted fact that some of the  installments, which were to be paid to OP No.1 though ECS mandates i.e. on 05 occasions for the period from 02.04.2020 to 14.09.2020 as mentioned by OP No.1 in its written version, were not paid on time, as a result of which OP No.1 had charged  penalty charges of Rs.450/- for each bounced transaction. However, at the same time, it is very strange to notice the account details of the complainant maintained with OP No.2 wherefrom it is coming out that  OP No.2 has started deducting an amount of Rs.295/- for 11 times on 19.07.2021 i.e. total Rs.3245/- towards services charges for “Insufficient balance”. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.118/- stood deducted by OP No.2 for four times on 20.07.2021 i.e. total Rs.472/- towards General Recovery Charges; thereafter an amount of Rs.147.50 on 20.07.2021 towards lien charges; thereafter, an amount of Rs.236/- towards lien charges for 21 times i.e. totaling Rs.4956/-.  The total of this amount comes to Rs.8820.50. It is significant to mention here that the complainant has not purchased anything from OP No.2 and it was only from OP No.3 that he had purchased the two refrigerators which were financed by the OP No.1. However, to justify such deductions, the appearance of OP No.2 was required, but as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OP No.2 and OP No.3 seeking  their version, yet, nobody appeared on their  behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 16.11.2021. As such,  non-appearance of OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Since, contention of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted, therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve him.
9.           As far as OPs No.1 and 3 are concerned, it may be stated here that because no deficiency in service has been proved on their part by the complainant, as such, the complaint filed by the complainant against OPs No.1 and 3 is liable to be dismissed.
10.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.1 and 3 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the excess amount deducted from the account of the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 05.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President