Haryana

Karnal

CC/110/2020

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Bajaj Finserv (Bajaj Finance Limited) - Opp.Party(s)

Akshat Sharma

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNAL.

                                                Complaint No.110 of 2020

                                                Date of Inst: 19.02.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 06.03.2024

 

Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of H.No.405, Mohideenpur, District Karnal, age 32, years (Aadhar Card No.5845 1263 3593).

 

                                                                        …….  Complainant

Versus

 

The Branch Manager Bajaj Finserv (Bajaj Finance Ltd.) SCO No.225, 2^nd Floor, Near Domino’s Sector-12, Karnal.  

 

                                                                 …… Opposite party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amdned up-to date.

 

 

Before:     Shri Jaswant Singh…………President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik……….Member

                Dr.Suman Singth…………Member

 

 

Argued by: Shri Akshat Sharma, counsel for complainant

                 Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred as the ‘Op’) on the averments that complainant is having two Bajaj Finance Card (Zero percent interest) which are attached with mobile numbers 99913-31750 and 97294-88196. Complainant has purchased on LED from Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd vide bill dated 24.02.2019, a mobile VIVO Model Y93 from Sardar Ji Communication vide invoice dated 23.04.2019 and a mobile of OPPO from Sardar Ji Communication vide bill dated 19.08.2019, through Bajaj Finance. Complainant had paid entire installments of the said three products but till today, the OP is deducting the installment amount from the complainant bank account. Complainant requested several times to issue the detailed statements of accounts of each products but OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not issue the statement. Thereafter, complainant lodged claim with the OP but OP always postpone the matter and did not supply the same.  There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had purchased LED from Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd and two mobile phones from Sardar ji Communication by availing a loan from the OP at 0% interest rate. The complainant had also availed an insurance policy (Asset Secure Policy) covering extended warranty on the mobile phone from the insurance company, by availing another loan from the OP. The complainant has not honored the EMI of loan A/c No.509DPFEZ544314 for the month of April 2020 and May 2020. The OP owing to the situation of pandemic has granted moratorium/relaxation to the complainant by extending the tenure of loan by one month by rescheduling the installment for the month of April 2020 and imposed additional interest of Rs.56/- which can be verified from the account statement. This fact was duly communicated to the complainant by SMS. It is further submitted that due to inadvertent technical error in the system, an amount of Rs.8537/- was wrongly deducted from the account of complainant, however, said unintentional error has been rectified by the OP and an amount of Rs.3368/- and Rs.5169/- have been refunded to the complainant on 08.05.2020 and 25.05.2020. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of LED bill Ex.C1, copy of mobile make VIVO bill Ex.C2, copy of OPPO mobile bill Ex.C3, copy of statement of account of ICICI Bank Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of tracking report Ex.C7, copy of statement of ICICI Bank Ex.C8, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C9, copy of loan summary Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 29.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP have tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms.Shivani Garg, authorized representative Bajaj Finance Ex.PW1/A, copy of trade mark application Ex.OP1, copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.OP2, copy of fresh certificate of incorporation Ex.OP3, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.OP4, copies of loan account statements Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 11.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant has availed three loans from the OP and despite paying the complete loan amount by way of EMIs, the OP has deducted extra amount from the account of the complainant without any reason and rhyme. He further argued that when the complainant requested the OP for supplying the statement of loan account, they flatly refused to supply the same, in this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has availed four loan from the Bajaj Card on 0% interest rate and three loan has already been closed and only one loan is active. He further argued that the OP has not deducted any extra amount from the account of the complainant. He further argued that the OP has also given the reply to the legal notice of the complainant and requested the complainant to share the copy of bank statement highlighting the amount deducted in order to verify and validate the records of the OP but the complainant did not share the particulars of bank statements. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The complainant has alleged that he has availed three loans from the OP one for purchasing LED and other two for purchasing mobile phones. Despite paying complete loan amount, the OP had deducted extra amount from the account of the complainant. On the other hand, the OP has alleged that the complainant has availed four loans and three loans have already been closed and only one loan is pending. The OP has further alleged that an amount of Rs.8537/- was wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant and the said amount has already been refunded to the account of the complainant.  

11.           Firstly, there is concealment of facts as the complainant in his pleadings has pleaded that he has availed the three loans from the OP but the OP has alleged that the complainant has availed four loans from them and out of them loan A/c No.509DOFEZ544314 is still active and an amount of Rs.1409/- is still to be paid by the complainant. In order to prove its version, the OP has placed on file the loan account statements Ex.OP6 to Ex.OP9. From the abovesaid statements, it is proved that an amount of Rs.1409/- is still pending towards the complainant.

12.           The complainant has alleged that he has closed all the loan accounts. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant, but the complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has not placed on file any document to show that the OP has deducted extra amount from his account.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated: 06.03.2024    

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                          Member