IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 192/2020 (filed on 24-11-2020)
Petitioner : Suresh Zachariah,
S/o. S. Scaria,
Thalakulam House,
Chethipuzha village,
Cheeranchira P.O.
Kottayam – 686 106.
(Adv. Zakhier Huzzain and
Adv. A. Sunitha)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) M/s. Hinduja Layland Finance Ltd.
Ambili Buildings,
Warriam Road P.O.
Cochin – 682 016.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party, who was a company providing finance for purchase of vehicles. The complainant had remitted installments promptly without any default. While so, the opposite party had renewed the insurance of the vehicle with their own company for an amount of Rs.24,497/- without the concurrence of the complainant on 21-10-2016. In 2017 the complainant managed to get a loan sanctioned from HDFC bank. For the purchase of this loan HDFC bank officials requested to the opposite party for sending a closure letter of his previous loan repeatedly. But the Kottayam office of the opposite party had not issued a closure letter raising some technical problems. At that time the Kottayam office of the opposite party was closing down and an e-mail was sent by the location manager of the Kottayam office to the HDFC bank on 19-02-2018 stating that the complainant had no EMI dues and the insurance policy was wrongly debited which could not be reversed till then. The wrong debit of insurance policy from the account of the complainant is not corrected which reflected in CIBIL Score of the complainant. The 2 loan application of the complainant was rejected due to the adverse CIBIL Score which occurred because of the wrong debit entry in the account of the complainant with the opposite party. The action of the opposite party in not clearing debit entry in the account of the complainant which affected his CIBIL score shows a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Being an entrepreneur, rejection of loan application due to adverse CIBIL Score caused much mental agony as well as financial loan to the complainant. Complainant has issued lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding the clearance of wrong debit entry on 10-06-2020. Eventhough the opposite party accepted notice, they neither sent any reply nor cleared wrong debit entry in the account. Hence the complaint is filed.
The notice was served to the opposite party, but they did not turn up. Hence opposite party is set exparte.
The complainant adduced evidence vide affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked.
On perusal of the above pleadings and evidence, we consider the issue that whether the complainant has established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, what are the reliefs.
The complainant availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party who subsequently debited insurance policy from the account of the complainant without informing him or getting consent from the complainant. The complainant without knowing the said debit approached HDFC bank and managed to get a loan from there but to avail that loan a closure letter from the opposite party was necessary. HDFC bank sent requests for the same to the opposite party repeatedly but quite shockingly the opposite party sent an email Ext.A1 to the authorities of HDFC bank stating that the complainant here in had EMI dues with the opposite party, “The insurance taken from our office debit wrongly, it was not reversed till now. I am attaching SOA with this”. Thus the opposite party admitted the wrong debit of the insurance policy from the account of the complainant and their inability to record the wrong debit. Ext.A3 is the loan account statement of the opposite party which shows no dues from the part of the complainant.
From the documents produced and from the pleadings of the complainant, we find that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party and made the whole repayment promptly. The opposite party though by mistake debited an amount from the complainant’s account towards the payment of insurance policy of their own they did not care to consult with the complainant whether he had intended to continue the insurance with them or not. So the wrong debit itself is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. As seen from the documents the complainant being an entrepreneur has to take financial assistance from such institutions frequently. But because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party in not revising insurance amount wrongly debited which affected the loan repayment. Due to the default in the loan repayment thus caused the CIBIL Score of the complainant got affected, leading to rejection of loans from other financial institutions. We find that this situation adversely affects the complainant both financially and mentally which is to be compensated. Moreover even after repeated requests from the complainant and HDFC bank the opposite party did not care to take initiative to correct the default. This indicates the unfair trade practice followed by them.
Though informed of the situation the opposite party did not care to resolve the problem of its consumer. Evenafter the inception of litigation, the opposite party did not turn up to explain or defend the complaint.
Hence for the above reasons, we allow the complaint and opposite party is directed to
- Clear the wrong debit entry in the account of the complainant with the opposite party and take necessary steps to correct his CIBIL Score within 30 days of the receipt of this Order.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, in default the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of the Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12th day of July, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, MemberSd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : E-mail dtd.19-02-18
A2 : E-mail dtd.03-03-2018
A3 : Copy of statement of account of complainant with the opposite party.
A4 : Office copy of lawyers notice dtd.10-06-20 to opposite party
A5 : Postal acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
