BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  639 of 2014

Date of Institution: 5.12.2014

Date of Decision:15.12.2015

Sh. Amneet Singh r/o H.No. 101, Shakti Nagar, Inside Lahori Gate, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited having its branch office at G.S. Towers, Opp.Police Commissioner’s residence, Mall Road, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.S.K.Vyas,Advocate

                For the Opposite Party     : Sh.G.S. Nagra,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Amneet Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein  that he purchased an Air conditioner after availing financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 21500/- from the opposite party . The loan was repayable in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 2150/- each. Complainant has alleged that out of the aforesaid 10 installments, two installments were  paid at the time of purchase of the said product and the payment of the remaining installments was to commence  from August 2012 through ECS system from the account of the complainant in Punjab National Bank , Kt. Bhai Sant Singh bearing saving bank account No. 1160000102927364. The complainant repaid   the said amount by making payment of the installments of Rs. 2150/- each regularly , detail of which is as under:-

2.       According to the complainant the aforesaid eight installments were duly debited to the account of the complainant and thus the entire amount of loan stood repaid to the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for issuance of no due certificate  and he was assured that the NOC is in process and the complainant will receive the same shortly . The complainant was surprised to receive a phone call on 13.1.2013 from the opposite party to the effect that payment of one EMI has been bounced due to “insufficient funds” in the bank account of the complainant. The complainant confirmed the same from his bank  and approached the opposite party alongwith statement of account informing that none of the  EMI amount payment has been bounced and all the installments have been duly debited to his bank account and he was asked to approach the local office alongwith the document. The complainant approached the opposite party at their local office on 21.1.2013  alongwith the certificate duly issued that no cheque was found bounced  and the account holder was having insufficient balance in his account on the relevant date.  On 28.11.29014 complainant came to know that a sum of Rs. 2150/- has been withdrawn by the opposite party by using the security cheque illegally and without any authority . The complainant visited the bank and obtained his statement of account  according to which a sum of Rs 2150/- was withdrawn by the opposite party  by illegally. Complainant has alleged that opposite party had received entire payment of EMIs regularly and had no right to withdraw the amount again . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party  to refund the amount of Rs. 2150/- illegally withdrawn from the saving bank account of the complainant alongwith interest. Opposite party be also directed to issue no due certificate . Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

3.       On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant entered into loan agreement bearing loan account No. 4910CD00033392   with the opposite party on 30.6.2012 to avail loan facility of Rs. 21500/- with EMI Rs. 2150/- for the total contract period of 10 months which was financed @ 0% rate of interest by the opposite party. The complainant has opted ECS for the payment of the loan amount directly from his aforesaid bank account. The complainant paid two EMIs in advance . The said two installments are to be adjusted against installment No. 9 & 10. The balance amount is payable by the complainant. It was submitted  that installment No. 6 due on 5^th Jan. 2013 was dishonoured due to reason “insufficient funds”. It was further submitted  that opposite party relied upon the ECS debit cum transaction return memo issued by  Tech-Process Solutions Ltd  , which is service provider duly approved by Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of forwarding ECS mandate for clearing. When the opposite party received summons  of this complaint from the Consumer Forum , they investigated the matter and found that complainant’s bank had erroneously returned the transaction  (6^th installment) with “insufficient funds” and has erroneously given the credit to some other customer having account No. 4910CD00033554 in the name of Anju Sharma. It was submitted that complainant in order to cover up the mistake done on the part of his banker i.e. Punjab National Bank filed the present complaint against the opposite party  just to grab the money in the shape of compensation. However, as goodwill gesture, opposite party is ready to pay the amount of Rs. 2150/- and  also ready to issue NOC to the complainant , but the complainant refused to accept the refund amount and NOC. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-6.

5.       Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Laxman Prashad Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

7.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained financial assistance in the form of loan to the tune of Rs. 21500/- from the opposite party for the purchase of Air Conditioner Whirlpool. The loan was repayable in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 2150/- each. The complainant out of the aforesaid 10 installments, two installments were  paid at the time of purchase of the said product and the payment of the remaining installments, was to commence  from August 2012 through ECS system from the account of the complainant in Punjab National Bank , Kt. Bhai Sant Singh bearing saving bank account No. 1160000102927364. The complainant repaid  the installments at appropriate time regularly as detailed above in the complaint and the same were debited to the account of the complainant as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant Ex.C-4. As such the entire amount of loan stood repaid to the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party for issuance of no due certificate . Thereafter the complainant received a phone call on 13.1.2013 from the opposite party to the effect that payment of one EMI has been bounced due to “insufficient funds” in the bank account of the complainant. The complainant confirmed the same from his bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Kt. Bhai Sant Singh and the said bank gave statement of account to the complainant Ex.C-4 confirming that none of the EMI amount payment has been bounced. Not only this the said bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Kt. Bhai Sant Singh branch, Amritsar has also issued certificate Ex.C-5 dated 27.5.2015 to this effect that the alleged EMI was duly paid to the opposite party and it was never bounced by the Punjab National Bank. Not only this the opposite party has also withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2150/- from the account of the complainant on 28.11.2014 using the security cheque illegally without any authority. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8.       Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant entered into loan agreement with the opposite party on 30.6.2012 to avail loan facility of Rs. 21500/- with EMI Rs. 2150/- for the total contract period of 10 months which was financed @ 0% rate of interest by the opposite party. The complainant has opted ECS for the payment of the loan amount directly from his aforesaid bank account. The complainant paid two EMIs in advance . The said two installments are to be adjusted against installment No. 9 & 10. The balance amount is payable by the complainant. The opposite party alleges that installment No. 6 due on 5^th Jan. 2013 was dishonoured due to reason “insufficient funds”. Opposite party submitted that they relied upon the ECS debit cum transaction return memo issued by  Tech-Process Solutions Ltd Ex.OP4. When the opposite party received summons  of this complaint from the Consumer Forum , they investigated the matter and found that complainant’s bank had erroneously returned the transaction  (6^th installment) with “insufficient funds” and has erroneously given the credit to some other customer having account No. 4910CD00033554 in the name of Anju Sharma. So all this has been done due to mistake on the part of the complainant’s bank and not on  the part of the opposite party. However, in the end i.e. in  para 6 of the preliminary objections of the written version  , opposite party has submitted that  as a goodwill gesture, opposite party is ready to refund the amount of Rs. 2150/- to the complainant and also ready to issue No due certificate to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the refund amount. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

9.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has obtained financial assistance of Rs. 21500/- from the opposite party bank for the purchase of Air conditioner “Whirlpool”.  The said loan was repayable in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 2150/-. Opposite party has taken two advance installments at the time of purchase of the said product which were to be adjusted as 9^th and 10^th installments. The remaining installments were agreed to be paid through ECS system from the saving bank account of the complainant bearing account No. 1160000102927364 of the complainant in Punjab National Bank, Kt. Bhai Sant Singh,Amritsar ; and as per the statement of account from Punjab National Bank of the complainant Ex.C-4, the complainant paid all the installments at proper time to the opposite party through ECS. The claim of the opposite party that 6^th installment payable by the complainant due on 5.1.2013 was  dishonoured by the banker of the complainant due to reason “insufficient funds” as it was reported by Tech.Process Solution Ltd Ex.OP4, therefore, opposite party got encashed one security cheque of Rs. 2150/- from the  account of the complainant on 28.11.2014, is not tenable and is totally against the facts. Opposite party could not produce any evidence from Tech.Process Solution Ltd to prove the transaction return memo Ex.OP4. Whereas the complainant has produced on record the statement of account of the complainant Ex.C-4 which fully proves that no installment of the complainant through ECS system was dishonoured by the banker of the complainant i.e. Punjab National Bank, Kt. Bhai Sant Singh,Amritsar as is evident from Ex.C-4  and this transaction was duly paid to the opposite party on 6.1.2013 by the banker of the complainant on behalf of the complainant. Not only this the banker of the complainant Punjab National Bank has issued certificate in this regard Ex.C-5 certifying that amount of Rs. 2150/- was debited by their bank vide transaction No.S80932745 dated 6.1.2013 from the account of the complainant in the name of Mr.Amneet singh Narang and was duly sent to the opposite party for ECS/0000575345646/TP Bajaj Aut. This certificate issued by Punjab National Bank Ex.C-5 as well as statement of account of the complainant Ex.C-4 fully prove that the 6^th installment was duly paid by the banker of the complainant i.e. Punjab National Bank through ECS to the opposite party and was never dishonoured by the banker of the complainant . The opposite party has concocted the story that this transaction was dishonoured by the banker of the complainant rather from the record produced by the opposite party  i.e. e-mail Ex.OP8 fully proves that this amount i.e. 6^th installment was received by the opposite party on 6.1.2013  but the opposite party has wrongly or inadvertently credited this amount to the account of one Anju Sharma and they wrote this letter through e-mail  for debiting this amount to the account of  Anju Sharma and transfer the funds to the account of Amneet  Singh, complainant . Not  only this the opposite party further committed negligence/deficiency in service by getting Rs. 2150/- from the account of the complainant by getting his security cheque given in advance by the complainant to the opposite party, on 28.11.2014 encashed from the aforesaid account of the complainant that is why the opposite party  in their written version para 6 of the preliminary objections has categorically admitted that as a goodwill gesture , opposite party is ready to refund  this amount of Rs. 2150/- and ready to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant. So all this fully proves that opposite party was not only negligent/in deficiency of service qua the complainant  but in order to conceal their fault, concocted story that the banker of the complainant has dishonoured the 6^th installment through ECS paid by the complainant to the opposite party, which was proved to be totally false and concocted one.

10.     Resultantly the present complaint is allowed with costs and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2150/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

15.12.2015                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Membe