Haryana

Ambala

CC/272/2018

Suraj Prakash Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Bajaj Finserv Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Rastogi

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        :  272 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  21.8.2018

                                                          Date of decision    : 11.6.2019.

 

Suraj Parkash Jindal s/o Shri Gian Chand, r/o H.No.88, Sector-A, Defence Colony, Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1. The Manager (Mortgage Section) Bajaj Finserv Ltd. Corporate Office- 4^th Floor, Office- Pune-Ahmedabad Road, Viman Nagar, Pune-411 014.
2. The Manager, Bajaj Finserv Ltd., SCO 91, 1^st Floor, Prem Nagar, Above Dena Bank, Near Karan Plaza, Opp. Arvind and Madaan Electronics, Ambala City-134 003.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Manu Rastogi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for both the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.20,434/-, Rs.14404/- and Rs.9471.67 besides Rs.6,000/- as interest alongwith future interest @18% p.a. for the date of filing of complaint till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000 /- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.
4.  

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant retired from Indian Air Force and is resident of Ambala Cantt. He was having two loans i.e. loan against property from HDB Finance, Ambala, but the representative of OPs contacted him and allured that they will provide loans at a lesser rate of interest and on his assurance, he got transferred his loan to the OPs. He availed two different loans from the OP No.2 bearing account Nos.440FSL17776663 & 440FSL17776890 for the sum of Rs.91,50,000/- and Rs.64,50,000/- respectively and both loans were disbursed on the same date i.e. 30.11.2015. The complainant had been paying instalment of both the loans without any bounce in payment. On his request, the OP No.2 issued letter for foreclosure dt. 29.11.2017 and given schedule of payment due to be paid by him on different dates from 30.11.2017 to 06.12.2017. The OP vide letter dt. 29.11.2017 in respect of loan bearing account No.440FSL17776663 of Rs.91.50 lacs claimed the amount due to be payable on 30.11.2017 as Rs.87,32,584.33 and for loan account No.440FSL17776890 for sum of Rs.64,50,000/- claimed the amount due to be payable on 30.11.2017 as Rs.61,55,750.10 i.e. total outstanding amount of Rs.1,48,88,334.33. The complainant paid the entire amount due amount on the same day i.e. 29.11.2017 and clear both the loans. He had deposited in all Rs.1,48,97,806/- against both the loans while only a sum of Rs.1,48,88,334.33 was due to be paid as on 30.11.2017, in respect of both the loans and there was over payment of Rs.9471.67 which was not refunded by the OPs. When the complainant gone through the statement of account of both the loans, it came to his notice that OPs debited Rs.12,622/- and Rs.8897/- on 18.4.2017 in both the accounts as annual maintenance charges for the financial year 2017-18 and again on 11.11.2017, the OPs debited Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- respectively as maintenance charges without any right and authority knowing fully well that he is going to clear the above loans. Thus, the amount of Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- debited on 11.11.2017 by the OPs was totally wrong and thus, they were liable to refund back the same to him. He made a complaint to the OPs telephonically and also through email on the company email ID wecare@bajajfinserv.in on dt. 16.12.2017, upon which, the OPs gave wrong reply dtd. 28.12.2017, stating therein that annual maintenance charges are charged on the anniversary date of loan booking. The OPs have committed fraud upon the complainant by debiting the amount of Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- and also by overcharging an amount of Rs.9471.67, while clearing the said loans. The complainant had also sent two legal notices dtd. 06.3.2018 & 25.6.2018 to the OPs, but they failed to give any reply to those notices. So, the OPs are deficient in providing services. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer as per definition of Consumer Protection Act; that the proper court fee had not been affixed with the complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties; that the amount had been debited in both the accounts according to the agreement between the parties; that the amount of Rs.12622/- and Rs.8897/- charged on 18.4.2017 was the amount charged for the financial year 2017-18 and amount of Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- charged on 11.11.2017 were for the year November 2017 to November 2018. On merits, rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                 To prove his version, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Yogesh Yogi, A.R., Bajaj Finance Ltd. as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had paid Rs.9471.67 in excess in both the loan accounts than the due amount. Thus, the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.9471.67 to him.  Not only this, they are also liable to refund Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- which they debited on 11.11.2017 on account of annual maintenance charges. By not refunding the said amount, the OPs have committed deficiency.

6.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for OPs has argued that the loan amount had been charged from the complainant as per the agreement and nothing in excess had been paid by him towards both the loan accounts. The amount of Rs.12622/- and Rs.8897/-, for both the loan accounts were debited on 18.4.2017 as annual maintenance charges for the financial year 2017-18 and the amount of Rs.20434/- and Rs.14404/- were debited on 11.11.2017 for the period November 2017  to November 2018. As such, nothing in excess has been charged by the OPs. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid on merit and same be dismissed with costs.

7.                 Admittedly, complainant had applied for foreclosure of both the loans, which was duly accepted by the OPs. From the perusal of the foreclosure letter dt. 29.11.2017 (Annexure C-1), regarding loan account No.440FSL17776890, it is evident that the complainant had to pay Rs.6155750.10 upto 30.11.2017. Whereas on 29.11.2017, he had paid an amount of Rs.6159480/- i.e. Rs.6137100/- + Rs.22380/-, as such, the complainant had paid Rs.3729.90 in excess than the due amount. From the perusal of the foreclosure letter dt. 29.11.2017 (Annexure C-2), regarding loan account No.440FSL17776663, it is evident that the complainant had to pay Rs.8732584.33 upto 30.11.2017. Whereas, on 29.11.2017, he had paid an amount of Rs.8738326/-, as such, the complainant had paid Rs.5741.67 in excess than the due amount. From the above-mentioned documents, it is clear that the complainant had paid Rs.9471.57 (Rs.3729.90+Rs.5741.67) in excess than the due amount. In rebuttal, nothing has been produced by the OPs. Since, the OPs have received an amount of Rs.9471.57 in excess from the complainant, therefore, they are liable to refund the same.

8.                From the perusal of statements of account of both the loans Annexure C8 and Annexure C9, it is evident that the OPs on 18.4.2017 had debited Rs.12622/- and Rs.8897/- as annual maintenance charges for financial year 2017-18. Once the annual maintenance charges for the financial year 2017-18 had been charged by the OPs on 18.4.2017, then the bank should not have charged annual maintenance charges again on 11.11.2017, when the loan accounts were foreclosed on 29.11.2017, which falls within the financial year 2017-18, for which, the annual maintenance charges had already been charged on 18.4.2017. Since the OPs had charged the annual maintenance charges twice, therefore, they are liable to refund the amount of Rs.34838/- (Rs.20434/- + Rs.14404/-) charged subsequently on 11.11.2017. In this way, the Ops are liable to refund the total amount of Rs.44310/- i.e. Rs.9471.57 + Rs.34838/-. The OPs are further liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith the litigation expenses.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allowed the present complaint against OPs. They are directed in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.44310/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 21.8.2018 i.e. the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

9.                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :11.06.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President