Haryana

Karnal

CC/412/2020

Harsh Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V.B. Bhatti

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 412 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.07.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.08.2023

 

Harsh Bhatti son of Shri Veer Bhan, resident of house no.37, Ram Nagar, Kachhwa Road, Karnal.

                                                                   …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Manager, Bajaj Finserve Ltd., 2^nd floor, SCO 225, near Domino’s Sector 12, Karnal.

…..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri V.B. Bhatti, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Amit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:

                  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 21.10.2017, complainant purchased an electronic equipments i.e projector from the OP, for the consideration of Rs.40,000/-, vide loan account no.5090CD55473116 and customer ID no.54769648. At the time of providing the financial assistance one installment of Rs.2000/- was received from the complainant in cash and the remaining 19 installments were to be received by the OP in monthly installments per month on every 2^nd day of every month. OPs have received Rs.60,000/- whereas the total loan amount was Rs.38000/- as such the OP has received an amount of Rs.22000/- as EMI in excess illegally from the complainant besides illegal bouncing charges Rs.5050/- as such OP has recovered the total amount of Rs.65050/- against the loan amount of Rs.38000/- and as such the OP has received Rs.27050/- in excess from the complainant. Even after receipt of Rs.27050/- in excess than the loan amount, OP has corrupted the cibil of the complainant intentionally, in order to make him bankrupt throughout his life divesting him from availing the loan facilities from the financial institutions or bank.  The complainant always remained serious to repay the loan amount to the OP as is ample clear from the statement of account so furnished by the OP, which shows that the OP has received about three to four installments in a month instead of one installment. Due to this act and conduct of OP, complainant has been defamed and he had to face the humiliation at the hands of the financial institutions when he approached for obtaining the loan facilities many times, as such complainant is entitled to get the damages from the OP for his illegal acts and conduct besides the amount of Rs.27050/-, which the OP has received in excess from the complainant. In this there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Bajaj Finserve Limited is the holding company of Bajaj Finance Limited and both are distinct legal enities. The complainant has availed the loan from Bajaj Finance Limited, however, he has not made Bajaj Finance Limited as party to the complaint and hence the complaint be dismissed only on this ground. It is further pleaded that complainant had taken the loan from the OP and as such the relationship between the complainant and the OP is that of debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider, hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant obtained a loan from OP, vide loan account no.5090CD55473116 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- dated 21.10.2017 with a monthly EMI of Rs.2000/- to be paid for 20 months commencing from 02.12.2017. OP submits that complainant had issued NACH mandates/Auto Debit for direct deduction of EMI’s from his bank account. OP further submits that the complainant had defaulted in the payment of EMI’s. Complainant had failed to honor the EMI as per the due dates i.e. 2^nd day of every month, as a result of which bouncing charges of Rs.450/- have been levied to his loan account. The detail of entries are explained below:-

EMI no.	EMI Due date	EMI paid	EMI paid in delay
1.	02.12.2017	18.12.2017	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied.
2.	02.01.2018	02.01.2018	-
3.	02.02.2018	02.02.2018	-
4.	02.03.2018	02.03.2018	-
5.	02.04.2018	02.04.2018	-
6.	02.05.2018	09.05.2018	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later alongwith bouncing charges of Rs.450/- which was levied
7.	02.06.2018	02.06.2018	-
8.	02.07.2018	30.07.2018	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
9.	02.08.2018	28.08.2018	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
10.	02.09.2018	30.09.2018	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
11.	02.10.2018	26.10.2018	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
12.	02.11.2018	02.11.2018	-
13.	02.12.2018	02.12.2018	-
14.	02.01.2019	02.01.2019	-
15.	02.02.2019	02.02.2019	-
16.	02.03.2019	02.03.2019	-
17.	02.04.2019	28.04.2019	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
18.	02.05.2019	31.05.2019	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
19.	02.06.2019	30.06.2019	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied
20.	02.07.2019	31.07.2019	EMI got dishonored and the same was paid in cash at a later and accordingly bouncing charges of Rs.450/- has been levied

It is further pleaded that OP had duly sent the reminders to the complainant on his registered mobile before the EMI due dates reminding him to maintain sufficient balance in his respective bank account. However, complainant failed to maintain the sufficient balance in his account as a result of which the EMIs have bounced and the charges which have been deducted by the complainant’s bank are the bouncing charges. Since the complainant had not maintained the sufficient balance in his bank account despite various reminders, bouncing charges have been levied against the complainant by the bank as well as his banker. In view of the above, facts of the case, complainant cannot take the stand that OP has collected the excess amount from him. 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 his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 05.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shivani Garg Ex.OP1/A, copy of certificate of registration after change of name of Company Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. to Bajaj Finance Limited Ex.OP1, copy of certificate of Incorporation Bajaj Finance Ltd. Ex.OP2, copy of certificate of Incorporation Ex.OP3, copy of statement of account Ex.OP4, copy of loan Term Sheet Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 30.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for 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 complainant had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the OP for purchasing of a electronic equipment i.e. projector. The said amount was to be repaid in 20 equal installments commencing from 02.12.2017 to 05.07.2019. Complainant paid the first installment in cash to the OP and remaining 19 installments were to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.2000/-. OP has received total amount of Rs.65050/- from the complainant. OP has received an amount of Rs.27050/- in excess illegally. The complainant approached the OP and requested to refund the amount of Rs.27050/- alongwith interest but OP did not pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on 21.10.2017, complainant availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the OP, which were to be repaid in 20 monthly installments of Rs.2000/-. The complainant is a willful defaulter and never paid the installments in time. No extra amount has been received by the OP as alleged by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, complainant has taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the OP and the said loan amount was to be repaid in 20 equal monthly installment of Rs.2000/-.

11.           As per the complainant, OP had charged the loan amount of Rs.65050/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.  The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OP has placed on file, the statement of account Ex.OP4.  On perusal of the said statement of account, it reveals that OP has deducted the monthly installment of Rs.2000/- from the account of complainant and on some dates has deducted the cheque bouncing charges, no extra amount has been deducted by the OP. Moreover, complainant himself placed on file statement of account Ex.C3, in the said statement of account, OP has deducted only monthly installments and cheque bouncing charges, no extra amount has been deducted by the OP. Further, complainant previously on last two or three dates has sought adjournments on the ground that he wants to produce his bank pass book to prove the illegal deductions but till date complainant has failed to produce the bank pass book.

12.           Thus, in view of the above, 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.

Announced

Dated:04.08.2023

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                         Member                     Member