DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 392 of 11.10.2017

                                      Decided on: 8.9.2021

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.Mohinder Singh, resident of A-9, Delite Colony, Rajaha Road,Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Finance Limited, 4^th Floor, Survey # 208/1-B, Viman Nagar, Pune through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. Bajaj Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Near Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar, Member

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.S.S.Ahuja, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Gaurav Singla, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant availed loan/finance of Rs.57600/- vide proposal No.4390CD00007133 dated 7.8.2010 from OP No.1 through OP No.2 for the purchase of Samsung LCD and he repaid the entire loan amount well within time and further that OP No.1 issued NOC dated 30.12.2010 in this regard
2. It is averred that the complainant again availed the loan of Rs.29000/- vide proposal No.4390CD00016399 dated 17.10.2011 for the purchase of LG LCD and the said loan was also repaid by the complainant well within time and OP No.1 issued NOC dated 21.9.2013 and  thereafter the complainant never availed any loan from the OP .
3. It is further averred that thereafter, after about two years, father of the complainant Sh.Mohinder Singh received phone call for the payment of the amount outstanding towards the complainant. Complainant alongwith his father rushed to OP No.2 to get the details of the alleged loan in question who told the complainant has availed the loan in the year 2007 for the purchase of invertor (local brand) and amount of Rs.24645/- was outstanding towards the complainant. The complainant demanded the detail of the alleged loan but the failed to do so. It is averred that the alleged demand of the OPs is totally illegal and arbitrary. It is further averred that again in the month of August, the complainant received phone call that arrears of one more loan amounting to Rs.43125/- is outstanding towards the complainant. Again the complainant approached the OPs and he was shocked to know that he has been illegally and arbitrarily fastened with another alleged loan which too is obtained for the purchase of inverter and name of the complainant has been entered in the list of defaulters so maintained by CIBEL. That the above said act of the OPs is totally wrong and amounts to deficiency in service as well as also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.The complainant got sent legal notice dated 10.8.2017 .It is further averred that the OPs are playing fraud with the complainant and he is not liable to pay any amount.
4. On this background of the facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to rectify their records and withdraw their illegal and arbitrary demand of repayment of alleged loan of inverter and also be directed to withdraw the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters from CIBEL; to pay compensation of Rs.one lakh on  account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.25000/-
5. Upon notice OPs appeared and filed the written reply having raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. In paraswise reply, it is admitted that the loans were availed by the complainant and the same were paid off by him in time. It is further submitted that no more collection related calls to pay the outstanding dues will be made to the complainant. The issue has been taken up with the CIBEL for suppressing the loan and however, the same will take almost 10 days to get it suppressed. The solutions have been provided to the complainant  and the errors have been closed. Prayer has been made that the complaint be dismissed.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Shivani Garg, Assistant Manager, Legal collections of OPs and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant availed loan of Rs.57600 on 7.8.2010 from OP No.1 through OP No.2 for the purchase of LCD and the OP issued NOC on 30.12.2010 against the said loan. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant again availed the loan of Rs.29000/- on 17.10.2011 for the purchase of LG LCD.The said loan was repaid and the OP issued NOC  on 21.9.2013.The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter the complainant never availed any other loan  but after about two years of repayment of said loans  he  had  received  threatening  phone calls from Delhi for the payment of outstanding amount. The ld. counsel further argued that as nothing was due against the complainant so he was wrongly harassed and the OPs were demanding from him. In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel has relied upon the citation Chairman/CEO Corporate Office, Bajaj Finance Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Samir Kumar Kundu S.C.Case No.Fa/71/2013  D/d.26.12.2013 wherein it has been held:

“Consumer Protection Act,1986 Section 2(1)(g) Banking-Appellant-Finance Limited mistakenly enlisted the Complainants name in the CIBIL list as a defaulter in making repayment of loan-Further it also appears from the record that Respondent-Complainant repaid the loan availed of by himself in stipulated period-But, the mistake on the part of the Appellant-Finance limited was responsible for the Respondent being deprived of getting credit facility from the Standard Chartered Bank-Further , everyone had access to the CIBIL site-showing the name therein as a defaulter definitely lowered the prestige of the Complainant/Respondent-Therefore, the mistake on the part of the Appellant-Finance Limited has lowered the dignity of the Respondent in the esteem of public-Held that, it will be just and proper if the O.P.-Bank pays the complainant L 2,00,000/- towards compensation and L 10,000/- towards litigation cost”.

10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that there was some system fault which was removed and now nothing is due .So the complaint be dismissed.
11. To prove this case complainant Gurpreet Singh has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is the statement of account dated19.9.2013 in which total three loans have been shown and two active loans have been shown. There is another document,Ex.C2 on the file, it is dated 31.5.2017 in which two active loans have been shown against the complainant.Ex.C3 is letter written by the complainant to the Manager Bajaj Finance Ltd.,Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 are also the letters,Ex.C10 is the legal notice sent to the OPs.
12. On behalf of the OPs Ms.Shivani Garg, Assistant Manager, Legal has tendered her affidavit, Ex.OPA and she has deposed as per the complaint. In para No.3, it is mentioned that the aforesaid loan accounts of the complainant have already been closed in the system of the company and also issued the NOC as the complainant had repaid the entire amount and now question of claiming any balance amount does not rise. In the written statement filed by the OPs,  it is stated that the company never demanding any illegal amount ?
13. So admittedly loan was paid in time but Exs.C1 and C2 are important documents of the OPs in which two loans are shown as outstanding against Sh.Gurpreet Singh, complainant.Ex.C2 is dated 31.5.2017 in which two loan has been shown whereas no loan was outstanding against the complainant. So definitely there was some fault on the part of the OPs  as the loan was paid in time was still shown in the document of the company. So company was negligent in providing the services to the complainant and they gave unnecessary harassment to the complainant although he had paid the loan amount in time.
14. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is allowed. As the loan was repaid in time, so the OPs are directed to remove the name of the complainant from CIBEL and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 11.10.2017 till realization.          

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:8.9.2021

                             Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar              Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President