Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/464/2020

Naresh Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Fin. Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/464/2020
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	17/11/2022

 

Naresh Rana son of Sh. Babu Ram, 36, 1^st Floor Cabin No.8, New Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Fin. Services Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Chopra Tower, Ambala-Chandigarh Road, Teh.Derabassi, Zirakpur, Mohali (Pb.) 140507.
2. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Fin. Services Ltd., Corporate Office, Bhosle Marg, P.K. Kurla Chowk, Worli, Mumbai 400018.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Naresh Rana, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. By way of the instant consumer complaint, complainant sought relief against the OPs on the ground that the OPs have deducted 5^th loan installment of ₹38,000/- from his bank account without giving any information to him during the moratorium period w.e.f. March 2020 to June 2020 on account of the loan amount sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the OPs for the purchase of commercial vehicle i.e. Eicher Pro 111 HHSD bearing registration No.CH01TB 1759 (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”).  It is further alleged that the loan sanctioned by the OPs in favour of the complainant was recoverable in 48 loan installments out of which 4 regular loan installments had already been deducted by the financier.  On account of the deduction made by the OPs by way of 5^th installment of ₹38,000/- from complainant’s account during the corona period, without giving information to him, complainant had suffered heavy loss due to shortage of funds in his bank account despite of the fact that the said deduction could not have even otherwise been made by the OPs.  Not only this, complainant was mentally tortured and harassed by the OPs, as a result of which, he has been compelled to file the present consumer complaint in order to seek the reliefs against the OPs.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also that the vehicle in question has been used by the complainant for commercial purpose.  On merits, denied that the OPs have made any deduction during the moratorium period which was firstly declared from 1.3.2020 to 31.5.2020 vide RBI circular dated 27.3.2020 (Ex.OP2) and later on the same was also extended by another RBI circular dated 23.5.2020 (Ex.OP3) from 1.6.2020 to 31.8.2020.  It is further denied that the OPs had never deducted any installment from 1.4.2020 to 31.8.2020 and the complainant, who has himself admitted that the vehicle is being used for commercial purpose, he has no right to file the present consumer complaint before this Commission. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. No rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that loan was sanctioned by the OPs in favour of the complainant for the purchase of subject vehicle, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have deducted an amount of ₹38,000/- being 5^th loan installment from the bank account of the complainant without his consent during the moratorium period declared by the RBI vide circulars (Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3), as is the case of the complainant, or if no such deduction was made by the OPs during the moratorium period and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
6. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the pleadings of the parties, are discussed as under:-

1. In order to prove the allegations made in the consumer complaint, complainant has not produced any statement of account showing that the amount of ₹38,000/- was deducted from his bank account by the OPs in the shape of 5^th installment of loan sanctioned in his favour.  On the contrary, OPs have produced the RBI circular dated 27.3.2020 (Ex.OP-2) which clearly indicates that the banks and financial institutions were permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on the payment of installments falling due between 1.3.2020 and 31.5.2020. Similarly RBI circular (Ex.OP-3) further indicates that the RBI had further permitted the banks and financial institutions to extend the moratorium by another three months w.e.f. 1.6.2020 to 31.8.2020 on payment of all instalments in respect of the term loan.  Not only this, copy of the statement of account of the loan account (Ex.OP-4), having been produced and proved by the OPs, further indicates that after 20.3.2020 till 19.9.2020, no amount was either deposited by the complainant nor deducted by the OPs from the bank account of the complainant in order to debit the same in the loan account of the complainant. Thus, as the complainant has failed to prove on record that the 5^th installment falling in the month of May has been deducted by the OPs from the bank account of the complainant for the payment of the loan amount, which is also evident from the copy of statement of account (Ex.OP4), he has not been able to prove the allegations as set up in the consumer complaint and has also failed to prove on record that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 17/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member