IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 27thday of November, 2021
Filed on 22.02.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhoshkumar, BSc.LLB(President)
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, BA, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.52/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.B.Unnikrishnan 1. Branch Manager,
Payikkattu House Bajaj Finserv Limited
Mayithara-P.O Cherthala-Thanneermukkam Road
Cherthala Near Reliance Petrol Pump
Alappuzha-688539 Cherthala
Alappuzha-688524
2. M.D/CEO,
Corporate Office, 4th Floor
Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office
Pune Ahammednager Road
Viman Nagar,
Pune-411014,
Maharashtra
(Adv.Smt.LegithaD’cruz for Ops.)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
In 2018 the complainant hadavailed a loan from the opposite party and he duly paid the loan amount within the prescribed time limit. Subsequent to said transaction opposite parties used to contact him over phone and intimated their new loan facilities. On 26.10.2019 complainant received a message from the opposite parties intimating to procure their new loan for Rs.10,000/- and available within 10 seconds it will make the process through his mobile phone. As the complainant was in needed money he pressed the button of his mobile phone and accepted the offer thereafter proceeded, as per the direction. But said amount was not credited in his bank account and also no information was given about said transaction. Later on 05.12.2019 an amount of Rs.1,775/- was debited from his account for the instalmentof the loan and the amount was credited to the opposite parties account No.6R2DPF92801545.
Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party. But their officer was very rough and behaved indifferently. At last,it was informed him that the loan amount has been credited to the Mobikwikwallet that can be used to make online purchase only. But the complainant needs liquid cash. The complainant has not been received any message about the conditions of loan transactions. Further, opposite parties informed that he could not cancel the wallet and only option is to repay the amount with interest by installment as directed. If he will not do so they will take necessary action against him. The said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant approached this commission for seeking following relief against the opposite parties.
(i) Direct the opposite parties to cancel the loan and to refund the debited amount of Rs.1775/- from the account with interest to the complainant.
(ii) Compensation for deficiency in service and the costs of proceedings
2. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a mobile phone by availing a loan from this opposite party at 0% interest rate and he had paid all the EMI’s for the above mentioned loan account as per the due dates without any default accordingly said loan account has been closed. Subsequently the complainant had himself consented to avail the Wallet loan, wherein at the request of the Complainant, this opposite party provided ainstacredit to the Mobikwik wallet of the complainant. The amount transferred to the Mobikwik wallet can be used for payments over offline and online merchants. Further, the amounts so transferred to the wallet cannot be further transferred to any bank or peers and can only be utilized to transact at merchant networks. The said amount is not in the form of cash as also, while availing the said Wallet Loan, there is a disclaimer which says that the loan cannot be cancelled once availed and post agreeing to this disclaimer only, the process moves further and the loan is processed. Basis, the consent received from this complainant, the loan was sanctioned by this opposite party.
The opposite party submits that till date the complainant has paid only the 01st EMI of Rs.1,775/- on 05.02.2019 and have given the stopped the pay instructions for EMI Nos.2 to 5 to his banker due to which said EMI Nos. 2 to 5 returned unpaid by complainant’s bank. The opposite party submits that the above mentioned loan account is active as on10.04.2020 with overdue amount of Rs.9822/- including the bouncing charges of Rs.1,816/- (Rs.454/- per instalment *4 months) plus late payment penalty of Rs.906/-
The consent received from this complainant, the opposite party sanctioned Wallet Loan by providing a insta credit to the Mobikwik Wallet of the complainant. Further the complainant after logging into the Bajaj Wallet App had accepted the Terms and Conditions of the offer displayed on the said app, post which the One Time Password (“OTP”) was generated after authentication, the amount was disbursed to the Mobikwik wallet of this complainant.
The complainant has approached the branch of this opposite party on 25.02.2020 seeking cancellation of said Wallet Loan and accordingly a request was raised by this opposite party, he was duly informed by the opposite party that the said loan cannot be cancelled and it is against the Terms and Conditions of the said loan. The opposite party submits that after duly authenticating the said transaction, this opposite party has sanctioned the loan to the complainant and now this complainant cannot take a stand that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the said loan.
This opposite party has sanctioned and disbursed the loan as per the request of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in services or any unfair trade practices committed by the opposite party nor any financial loss of mental harassment has been caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite party. Complainant is being strayed to built up a case on his whims and fancies but the complainant failed to appreciate the fact that mere allegation does not hold good or cannot be held good in any manner unless the complainant produces any iota of evidence in support of his allegations. That the complaint is not entitled to get any relief or compensation on the basis of making false, frivolous, and vague allegations.
3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows.
(i) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties?
(ii) Relief and cost if any?
4. The complainant appeared in person. Opposite parties were appeared through the counsel. Complainant was adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Ext.A1 to A7 were marked. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked by the opposite parties.
5. Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that under the influence of Ext A1 & A2 messages he pressed the mobile phone button and accepted the opposite parties loan offer and then proceededas per the directions in the message. He is under the impression that said loan amount will be credited in his bank account. Later he knows that the amount is not in the form of liquid cash and the loan has been credited in the Mobikwikwallet. He approached the 1st opposite party but they are not ready to cancel the said transaction. Moreover on 06.12.2009 Rs.1775 was debited from his account and credited to the opposite party’s account. Ext.A4 bank statement belongs to the complainant is produced for showing the said transaction. Ext A1 dated 26.10.2019 is the copy of message, Ext A2 is also the copy of message, Ext A3 is the copy of complaint before the Finance Minister of Kerala Ext A4 is the copy of A/c statement belongs to complainant, Ext A6 is the copy of message and Ext A7 is the copy of complaint to the Governor.
Opposite parties contented that the complainant was a good customer of them and he has given consent to avail the Wallet loan. As per his request they provided such facility to him. The amount is not in the form of cash. The wallet can be used for payment of offline and online purchases. The loan cannot be cancelled once availed. The opposite parties were sanctioned the loan only after received consent from the complainant. He did all the formalities like logging in the opposite parties wallet App had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer, generated One Time password etc
Exts B1 copy of loan account statement belongs to the complainant as per the loan date 31.10.2018 and Ext B2 is the copy of loan account statement belongs to the complainant, as per the loan date 05.12.2019.
The dispute is that even though the complainant proceeded in his mobile to avail the loan offered by the opposite parties, but they did not disburse the amount to his account. It appears that loan amount for Rs.10,000/- has been credited in the Mobikwick wallet which is not in the form of liquid cash. On perusal of evidence on records it appears that in A1 date 26.10.2019 the message is seen in Malayalam in which mentioned about the quick access of loan and also mentioned that disbursal of loan is based on conditions. The messages shown in Ext A2 is in English. In one of the message date 28.10.2019 in which it is specifically mentioned that “Complete the process to get insta credits in your wallet instantly” PW1, the complainant deposed that he was fully aware of the contents in Ext A2 then he proceeded to avail the loan. Further he deposed that he is a businessman and he had completed the Secondary School education but he adds that he don’t know English. It seems that in his proof affidavit para No.10, it is stated that he had searched and he verified the mobile App www.bajajfin.in but he deposed he did not know about said statement of him. So it can be seen that he is not at all ignorant to handle the electronic mode of communications. Since the complainant logging the concerned App and accepted the loan offer, thereafter proceed and generate post One Time Pass word. It seems that these all are done without the help of others.
In view of that the above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant himself proceeded to avail the loan after the installation of the concerned App as directed by the opposite parties. Only after the receiving consent, the opposite parties act and have been provided the alleged loan. Hence it is found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore there is no merit in the complaint.
Point No.2
In the result the complaint is dismissed as devoid of any merits. No order as to cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 27th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 Sri.Unnikrishnan B (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of messagedtd. 26.10.19
Ext.A2 - Copy of message
Ext.A3 - Copy of complaint before the Finance Minister of Kerala
Ext.A4 - Copy of account statement
Ext.A5 - Copy of letter dtd.03.01.2020
Ext.A6 - Copy of message
Ext.A7 - Copy of complaint to Governor
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of loan account statement
Ext.B2 - Copy of loan account statement as per the loan date 05.12.2019.
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
