BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

   24^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

O R D E R

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant prays to direct the OP to refund suspected amount of 3 installment Rs.1,650/-, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses.

2.      The brief facts of complaint is as under:

Complainant submitted that, he purchased washing machine from M/s.Girias Show Room, Malleshwaram, Bangalore.  The total cost of the said washing machine was Rs.20,910/- which has been taken by loan from M/s.Bajaj Finance Limited, Bangalore.  Before taking the machine, initially complainant has paid the down payment of Rs.4,550/-.  The said amount paid through HDFC Debit card and the remaining amount to be paid under installment basis, which is under loan from Bajaj Finance Ltd., Bangalore in 8 installments @ each EMI for Rs.1,980/- upto December 2017.  OP had deducted a sum of Rs.1,650/- each for 3 installments instead of Rs.1,980/- for the month of May, June, July 2017.

Complainant further submitted that after 3 months M/s.Bajaj Financier created new account No.4040CD46118475 instead of old account No.4040CD37606353 without the complainant knowledge and asked the complainant to pay 3 more installments till March 2018 for Rs.1,980/-.  Complainant shocked and enquire the extended another 3 more installment till March 2018 instead of closing account in December 2017.  Hence complainant sought for full details of the account.  OP has not responded.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant filed this complaint.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version in brief as under:

OP submitted that the complainant purchased washing machine through loan from OP vide Lan No.4040CD37606353 for an amount of Rs.19,800/-.  The monthly EMI of the same was Rs.1,980/- but due to some technical error the EMI was deducted at Rs.1,650/-.  That the said loan stands cancelled at the system/records of the OP which was observed during the time of the recon activity done at the end of OP.

OP further submitted that there was technical error on the part of OP, the old Lan No.4040CD37606353 was cancelled in the system and a new loan account was created vide Lan No.4040CD46118475 for an amount of Rs.19,800/- dated 18^th July 2017.  The monthly EMI was now generated at an amount of Rs.1,980/- which was as per the repayment schedule.  The EMI’s of an amount of Rs.1,650/- which was deducted from the previous loan account was adjusted in the new loan account which is also reflecting from the statement of account.  The tenure of the loan account was for a period of 10 months, out of which 2 EMI’s of an amount of Rs.3,960/- was already paid by the complainant, further out of the tenure of 8 months, 3 EMI’s for an amount of Rs.1,650/- was adjusted (Rs.1,650 x 3 =4,950), that from the amount of Rs.4,950/- the EMI of Rs.1,980/- twice (Rs.1,980x2=3,960) (which is the present EMI) has been adjusted and the differential amount of Rs.990/- (4,950-3,960=990) is lying as the unadjusted amount in excess which will be refunded to the complainant after the closure of the loan account.

OP further submitted that the complainant has paid the remaining 5 EMI’s on time for an amount of Rs.1,980/- which is evident from the statement of account, however, the last EMI is left to be paid by the complainant.  That the loan will be closed after the complainant pays off the 06^th EMI for an amount of Rs.1,980/-.  No amounts have been deducted in excess and that the same has been deducted as per the loan scheme only.  Complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by giving false evidences and is trying to waste the time of the Court.  OP is not liable to pay any compensation and interest as claimed by the complainant.  Complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and is not maintainable, it is liable be dismissed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant and OP has submitted written arguments.  Complainant and OP have produced certain documents.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative in part

Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

7. Point No.1:  Admittedly complainant purchased washing machine at M/s.Girias Show Room, Malleshwaram, Bangalore.  The total cost of the washing machine was Rs.20,910/- as per Ex-A1.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant took a loan from OP to purchase the said washing machine.  The contention of the complainant is that at the time of obtaining the loan, he has paid the down payment of Rs.4,550/-.  For the remaining amount to repay in 8 installments by each EMI of Rs.1,980/- upto December 2017.  The OP deducted a sum of Rs.1,650/- for 3 installments and closed the loan account and opened fresh loan account without the complainant knowledge and deducted Rs.1,980/- and asked the complainant to pay another 3 installment till March 2018.  Hence the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8. Per contra OP submitted that due to technical error EMI was deducted at Rs.1,650/- and the said loan stand cancelled in the system of OP.  The said fact was observed by the OP and opened a new loan account for an amount of Rs.19,800/- on 18^th July 2017.  The monthly EMI was generated at an amount of Rs.1,980/-.  The EMI amount of Rs.1,650/- was deducted from the previous loan account was adjusted in the new loan account.  If unadjusted amount in excess which will be refunded to the complainant after closure of the loan account.  OP has not deducted excess amount from the complainant account.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

9. Admittedly OP has closed the loan account No.4040CD37606353 and opened a new loan account No.4040CD46118475 after deduction of 3 months EMI.  The OP has voluntarily closed the account and opened a new account without any intimation or notice to the complainant.  The said act of OP is arbitrary and illegal.  As per the OP contention the said mistake happened due to technical error.  The OP cannot take shelter under a mistake was only a technical error and not an intentional.  The OP being financial institution coupled with a duty to inform by closing the loan account and opening the new account on the same loan amount.  Not doing so, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

10. Further the complainant sought for refund of suspect amount of 3 installments of Rs.1,650/- and prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  The OP in his version contended that 3 EMI amount of Rs.1,650/- was adjusted and different amount of Rs.990/- is lying as the unadjusted amount in excess which will be refunded to the complainant after the closure of the loan account.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that OP has not refunded amount of Rs.990/- after closure of the loan account.  Hence it is deemed that the excess amount is lying in the unadjusted amount is refunded to the complainant.  With regard to the compensation claimed by the complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- is disproportionate.  Of course the complainant must have suffered inconvenience and mental agony by the act of OP.  On looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the inconvenience and mental agony undergone by the complainant due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, we feel it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.3,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly we answer the point No.1 affirmative in part.

11. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:          

       O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

OP shall comply the said order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open Commission on this 24^th day of September 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Somasundram.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Veena Y.M.

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party:

Vln*