Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/176/2021

Praveen Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Ford Credit India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Kumar Kamboj

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/176/2021
Date of Institution	:	18.3.2021
Date of Decision	:	15.2.2023

 

Praveen Singhal, H. No. 2329A, Sector 63, Chandigarh Housing Board flats, Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Manager, Ford credit India Private Limited, campus 4B, 5^th floor RMZ, Millennia Business Park, 143, Dr. MGR Road, North Veerana Salai, Perungudi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600096.

 .  … Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY		Sh. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
		OP exparte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

• Briefly stated, the complainant availed car loan from Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP) and he was paying regular installments before lockdown. In the month of March 2020, the  National Lockdown was imposed by the Govt. Of India and the govt came with moratorium policy which is binding on all the financial institutions and according to which all the loans were freezed and the moratorium benefit was granted to all the loanee.  Accordingly the  complainant on 2^nd of April 2020 sent a mail to the OP with a request for deferring the car loan and the OP directed the complainant to complete some  formalities which was completed by the complainant. It is alleged that despite this the OP deducted the installments for the month of April, May and July 2020. The complainant mailed to the OP on 21.5.2020  requesting to return the EMI as during that period the complainant was facing financial hardship. The complainant again sent email dated 28.5.2020 and 29.5.2020 for granting him the moratorium benefits as per govt instructions. On 1.6.2020 the complainant received a telephonic call that his request would be processed soon but nothing was done by the OP.  It is alleged that on 17.7.2020 the OP tried to deducted EMI from the account of the complainant  without giving moratorium benefits by sending message to maintain sufficient fund.  The  complainant again  vide email 23.8.2020 and 24.8.2020 requested the OP to  restructure his loan but the OP directed the complainant to make payment of Rs.2953/- for the delay payment so that the complainant could get benefit under moratorium. Accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount and informed the OP. However, the OP vide email 3.11.2020 and 6.11.2020 asked the complainant to pay two EMIs with late payment charges. On 24.11.2020 the complainant vide email asked the OP  that he applied for moratorium which was not granted rather the OP charges Rs.1180/- due to insufficient fund and his CIBIL score got relegated, therefore, he requested the OP to refund the said amount and rectify the CIBIL of the complainant.  It is alleged that despite repeated request the OP did not rectify the CIBIL of the complainant nor they gave benefit of moratorium to the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed. 
• OP did not turn up despite service of notices, hence Opposite Party was proceeded exparte vide order dated  18.6.2021. 
• Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
• We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire record.
• On perusal of record, it is observed that in spite of issue of Govt. directions of moratorium policy, no moratorium benefit was granted to the complainant by the OP despite repeated requests made by the complainant, on the contrary the OP charged late payment charges from the complainant, which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
• Also it is observed that the OP despite being duly served, failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served, which raised a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Parties have failed to render due service to the complainant and have nothing to contradict meaning thereby that they duly admits the claim of the complainant.   
• From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OP. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party as under

• To restructure the loan account of the complainant and give benefit of moratorium as per Govt. instructions during COVID 19 period.
• To get the CIBIL  score of the complainant corrected from the authority concerned.
• to pay Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
• to pay 5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

• This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(iii)  above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) (ii)(iv) above 
•    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member    Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member