District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 464/2020.
Date of Institution:07.12.2020.
Date of Order: 02.06.2023.
Ganga Ram Brijwasi S/o late Shri Januni Prasad R/o S-379, Village Saran, Near Roop Jewelers, Durga Mandir, NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Bajaj Finserv ltd., First floor, R.B.L. Bank, Near Vaishno Devi Mandir, Tikona Park, NIT, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. Bajaj Finserv Ltd., Corporate Office: 4th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office, Pune Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 410014 through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
3. M/s. paytm, One 97, Communications Ltd., B-121, sEctor-5, Noida – 201301 (U.P).
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. R.S.Rauthela , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Sh. Amardeep Yadav, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant got financed a product from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 through EMI card No. 2030xxxx6873 against loan A/c. No. 579REPEK500033, as per the following repayment schedule:-
Amount financed Period of EMI Monthly premium
Rs.16,800/- 19.5.2019 to 02.09.2020 Rs.1232/-
(i.e 16 EMI)
Till 03.04.2020, the EMI of Rs.1232/- was debited from the bank account of the complainant without any fault. However, in the meantime, due to spread of corona virus, the Govt. of India had announced lockdown in the country, therefore, the EMI due on 02.05.2020 was paid by the complainant on 28.05.2020 vide paytm order No. 11019270366 at 8.52 A.M. amounting to Rs.1232/- in favour of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, which payment order was successful. Similarly, the payment for the month of June, 2020 was paid by the complainant on 21.6.2020 against order NO. 11152617902 amounting to Rs.1232/- vide paytm order successful. The payment for the month of July 2020 was made by the complainant vide order NO. 11329801762 of Rs.1232/- against paytm successful order. The payment for the month of August, 2020 was made by he complainant vide order NO. 11499311405 for Rs.1232/- against paytm successful order and the last due EMI for the month of September was made by the complainant on 02.09.2020 vide paytm order NO. 11552567331 for Rs.1232/- against paytm successful order. In this manner, the complainant had paid all the EMI to the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. On 20.09.2020, the complainant received telephonic call from the Executive of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 that EMI for the month of September 2020 was due and outstanding, for which the complainant told him that he had already made the payment on 02.09.2020 through paytm and the complainant also sent screenshot of successful payment order to the said Executive of the opposite parties. After 20 days, the complainant again received a telephonic call from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to the effect that EMI of Rs.1632/- was still overdue against the complainant. The complainant told the caller that there was no EMI of Rs.1632/- to be paid by the complainant because all the amount of EMI of Rs.1232/- against the loan account of the complainant had already been paid. The complainant sent the payment receipt to opposite parties Nos. 1& 2 through e-mail which was duly received by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. But inspite of that on 11.10.2020 an amount of Rs.1232/- was again debited from the account of the complainant by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, in addition to Rs.750/- on dated 25.11.2020 and Rs.1497/- were also deducted on 02.12.2020 without any rhyme or reason. Not only this, an amount of Rs.3068/- was still shown to be outstanding on paytm app against the complainant. As per summary on 02.09.2020 all the EMIs were paid but inspite of that Rs.3068/- was still shown to be paid by the complainant and Rs.1232/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.1497/- illegally and unlawfully were debited from the account of the complainant. The opposite parties had also blocked the EMI card of the complainant. The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 also showing another loan account against the complainant having A/c. NO. 579EBLFZ295990-1199 for the period 26.05.2020 to 02.09.2020 in which installment was also paid, had been shown by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and remaining amount was shown to be overdue. Whereas, the complainant had not availed any loan/finance facility from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 except the loan account No. 579REPEK500033, for which all the due installmens had been made by the complainant. Not only this, the complainant came to know online that another loan of Rs.1199/- was also running against the complainant, whereas, no such loan had ever been availed by the complainant. All these false and fabricated loan accounts had been shown against the complainant in order to spoil the CIBIL score of the complainant which was totally unlawful, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) Issue “No Dues Certificate” against the loan A/c. NO. 579REPEK500033, duly detailed & described in para No.2 of the complaint.
b) improve the CIBIL score of the complainant, which was spoiled by the opposite parties intentionally, knowingly and willfully.
c) refund of Rs.1232/- debited on 11.102020, Rs.750/- debited on 25.11.2020 and Rs.1497/- debited on 02.12.2020 from the account of the complainant.
d) pay Rs.11,800/- being charged by the banker of the complainant on account of presentation of 3 cheques at 20 times with the banker of the complainant and Rs.600/- charged by the opposite parties on account of overdue charges.
e) remove/clear all the fake loan accounts shown in the name of complainant in their system.
f) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
g) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had duly consented for the said loan and it was on the basis of the authentication of the transaction by the complainant on real time basis by submitting one time password (OTP) which was sent to his registered mobile No. i.e 9350350303 with an alert stating “Do not share your OTP with Anyone’. The said loan got booked in the records of this opposite party. IP details for the transaction accepted by the complainant on 17.05.2020 wee mentioned in detail in the facts of the case. Also the complainant was sent SMS’s on his registered mobile number on 22.05.2020 and 23.05.2020 for opting out of the said plan to which the complainant had failed to revert, which details were also mentioned in the facts of the case. However, in good faith, the above mentioned loan bearing No.. 579EBLFZ295990 had been cancelled by this opposite party and an amount of Rs.1,199/- had been refunded to the complainant vide UTR No. CMS1872607199. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant, in the present complaint was alleging that he got financed a product form opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. During the lockdown the complainant paid his EMI to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 through the online platform of opposite party No.3. On 20.09.2020 the complainant alleged that he received a call from the September,2020 was due and outstanding. The complainant further alleged that opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had presented 3 cheques of complainant for 20 times and the bank charged a sum of Rs.11,800/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had cheated the complainant in order to charge heavy interest. It was submitted that the complainant had not come to this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands. The complainant had concealed vital information pertaining to the whole transaction. Upon receipt of the complaint of the complainant , the opposite party No.3 with no fault or liability on its part and as per standard procedure promptly requested the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 concerning the payment of EMI dated 02.09.2020 of Rs.1,232/-. The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 appraised the opposite party No.3 that the payment of EMI of Rs.1,232/- dated 02.09.2020 had been successfully credited in the complainant’s loan account. A bare of perusal and reading as a whole complaint and the facts which had been alleged by the complainant clearly reveals that no allegation whatsoever had been raised against the opposite party No.3. The only mentioned of the opposite party No.3 was with the respect to the role it played in facilitation of the bill payment of the EMI of the complainant of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. There exists no grievance the EMI of the complainant. The role of opposite party NO.3 (Paytm) in such payments was limited to only providing an independent platform to its merchants/customers. In the present complaint, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2had agreed to avail payment gateway services of opposite party No.3. Complainant made payment to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Hence, the privity of this transaction was in between the complainant and opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 had no role to play whatsoever in the said party Nos.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 had no role to play whatsoever in the said transaction and on this sole ground the present complaint was not maintainable. Further in common parlance, the complainant had made the payment online to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, the issue in respect of EMI payment and charges solely lies with opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Ganga Ram Brijwasi, Ex.C-1 - My EMI card Available amount 25,500/-, Ex.C-2 – Statement of account, Ex.C-3 – statement of account from 01.08.2019 to 04.12.2020, Ex.C-4 to 8– successful transactions, Ex.C-9 – email dated 30.10.2020,, Ex.C-10 - transaction receipt. Ex.C-11 – loan details, Ex.C-12 – email dated 30.10.2020, Ex.C-13 – Recharge & bill payment,, Ex.C-14 – statement of account, Ex.C-15 – text message, Ex.C-16 – letter of settlement, Ex.C-17 & 18- receipts, Ex.C-19 - bill details,Ex.C-20 to 23– Text messages, E.C-24 – Overdue notice,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 – affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg, authorized representative Bajaj Finance Ltd., Ist floor, SCF 35, BRS Nagar, Opp. Police Station, Ludhiana , Ex. R-1 – certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence act. 1872, Ex.R-2 – Certificate of incorporation, Ex.R-3 – Fresh certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon change of name, Ex.R-4 – statement of account, Ex.R-5 – Loan Financial summary as on 26.03.2021,, Ex.R-6 – Loan account statement, Ex.R-7 – No Dues Certificate.
As per evidence of opposite party No.3 Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Shri Jitender Kumar, Authorized representative of opposite party No.3 having its office at B-121, Sector-5, Noida.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. Bajaj Finserv Ltd with the prayer to: a) Issue “No Dues Certificate” against the loan A/c. NO. 579REPEK500033, duly detailed & described in para No.2 of the complaint. b) improve the CIBIL score of the complainant, which was spoiled by the opposite parties intentionally, knowingly and willfully. c) refund of Rs.1232/- debited on 11.102020, Rs.750/- debited on 25.11.2020 and Rs.1497/- debited on 02.12.2020 from the account of the complainant. d) pay Rs.11,800/- being charged by the banker of the complainant on account of presentation of 3 cheques at 20 times with the banker of the complainant and Rs.600/- charged by the opposite parties on account of overdue charges. e) remove/clear all the fake loan accounts shown in the name of complainant in their system. f) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . g) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
7. After going through the evidence led by the complainant and there is deficiency in service on account of RBL bank opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and also requested for the waive of 11,800/- due to submission of the three cheques 20 times to the banker and also Rs.660/- charged by the opposites on account of over due charges. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite parties are directed to over haul the account of the complainant and adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant and also issue the NOC against A/c No.579REPEK500033 and write a letter to CIBIL for the concerned agency. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 02.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
