SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.7,500/- which is excessively received from the complainant towards the loan amount, with 12% interest together with compensation and cost to legal proceedings.
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the customer of OPs and holding a bajaj card No.2030 40008318 6919. OP No.2 is a famous non-banking financial corporation having business across the country and OP NO.1 is the branch of OP No.2. Complainant purchased two AC from flip kart on 14/01/2019 worth Rs.21,999/- and Rs.23,198/-. He purchased the product on No cost EMI terms with 6 installment of OP No.1 and as per the terms, he has to pay Rs.3,667- and Rs.3867/- respectively towards EMI. But OPs had charged 3725/- and 3925/- EMI against the terms. Further stated that the loan was automatically closed without any intimation given to the complainant and started new loan with new terms. As per that complainant has to pay Rs.3,003 per month for 15 installments. Further stated that as per the new loan instead of 37,547/- OP had made the principal amount as Rs.39,802. So the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.52,595/- instead of Rs.45,197/- there by caused the loss of Rs.7,500/-. Hence the OPs are liable to pay the amount of Rs.7,500/- which is excessively paid by the complainant towards the loan amount with compensation and cost. The conducts on the part of OPs are sheer deceptive unfair trade practice amounting to willful deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
After receiving notices OPs filed written versions having contention that the OP submitted the OP had received the legal notice dated 06/02/2019 which was duly responded by this OP in the registered email ID of the complainant. The OP submits that the complainant had availed 3 online loans from the OP towards the purchase of the products from the online shopping merchant which have been foreclosed by the complainant himself and the principle outstanding for all the 3 online loans have been carried forward and through sharing the credentials and the One Time Password over the chart Box Bitly Link the complainant has given the consent to convert the 3 online Loans to one EMI Lite loan vide Loan account No.595EPLEC316625. OP submits that the OP had sent the SMS wrt to the promotional offer of converting the online loans to one single EMI lite loan on 12th Feb 2019 at 5.29 PM in the registered mobile number and the same was accepted by this complainant on 12/02/2019 at 8.35 PM, this act of the complainant itself proves that he complainant had agreed to avail/convert the Old Loan accounts to the new one. The complainant himself has given the consent of availing the said loan. Thus stands no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thus stands no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On 12th Feb 2019 the OP had sent the message to the number 9947873096 and that the complainant had agreed and accepted to convert the same to one single loan account on 12th Feb 2019 itself. The OP further submits that the new loan account No.595EPLEC316625 was created in the name of the complainant for an amount of Rs.39,802/- dated 14/03/2019 with a monthly EMI of Rs.3003/- and for 15 months commencing from 02/04/2019. That as on date the said loan account stands closed as the complainant has paid all the EMI’s on time without any default on the 2nd date of every month except the EMI No.11 which was dishonored on 02/02/2020 due to insufficient funds interlia however the same was paid in cash along with the bouncing charges of Rs.454/- on 10/02/2020 which was levied as per the terms and conditions of each defaults made by the complainant in repayment of the installments. Hence the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
From the side of complainant only documents Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. and the expert report as Ext.C1. On behalf of OPs, the legal manager of OP has filed his chief affidavit and was examined as Dw1 and marked Ext.B1 to B7. After that the learned counsels of both parties filed written argument notes.
Complainant’s allegation against OPs are that he purchased two AC from flip kart on 14/01/2019 worth Rs.21,999/- and Rs.23,198/-. He purchased the product on No cost EMI terms with 6 installment of OP No.1 and as per the terms, he has to pay Rs.3,667- and Rs.3867/- respectively towards EMI. But OPs had charged 3725/- and 3925/- EMI against the terms. Further alleged that the loan was automatically closed without any intimation given to the complainant and started new loan with new terms. As per that complainant has to pay Rs.3,003 per month for 15 installments. Further stated that as per the new loan instead of 37,547/- OP had made the principal amount as Rs.39,802. So the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.52,595/- instead of Rs.45,197/- there by caused the loss of Rs.7,500/-. According to complainant the action of OPs amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
Ext.A1 shows that total loan amount as Rs.39,802/- Ext.A2 shows loan amount as 21,999/- EMI amount Rs.36,67/-, Number of EMIs 6 in Nos. Ext.A3 shows loan amount as Rs.23,198/- EMI amount Rs.3,867/-. Number of EMIs is 6
The main prayer of complainant is to reimburse Rs.7500/- with interest and also compensation.
On the other hand contentions of OPs are that the complainant had availed 2 online loans against the products purchased from the online shopping portal along with an insurance from OP at 0% interest PA. OP further submits that the new loan account No.595 EPLEC316625 was created in the name of the complainant for an amount of Rs.39,802/- dated 14/03/2019 with a monthly EMI of Rs.3003/-and for 15 months commencing from 02/04/2019. Further as on date the said loan account stands closed as the complainant has paid all the EMI’s on time without any default on the 2nd date of every month except the EMI No.11 which was dishonored on 02/02/2020 due to insufficient funds interlia however the same was paid in cash along with the bouncing charges of Rs.454/- on 10/02/2020. OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
From the contention of OPs and from Ext.B3 account statement, it is evident that complainant got a message on 12/02/2019, from the OPs, the offer to convert the two loans to a single loan with EMI of Rs.3003/- for a loan tenure of 15 months for a fixed total interest of Rs.4949/- and it is evident that the SMS was sent to the mobile number of the complainant. From the facts it is also evident that complainant had remitted all the 15 EMI and loan stands closed without any protest. Ext.B4 revealed that the complainant closed the loan in dispute on 02/06/2020. Ext.B8 shows loan account statement of the complainant’s pending loan.
Moreover it is pertinent to be noted that the complainant in this case does not enter in the witness box for giving his evidence. The learned counsel of OP submitted a number of reported citations of various High court, in which it is held that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.
So considering the above said view of the Hon’ble High court and from the facts and circumstances as discussed above, from the documents availed, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and there was no arbitrary action taken by the OP in closing the old two loan and converted to a single loan. Hence complainant is not entitled to get refund of any amount from the side of OPs.
In the result complaint fails and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Copy of Bajaj Card
A2&A3- Loan details
A4- Copy of Lawyer notice dated 15/06/2019
A5- Letter issued to Bajaj Fin Cop Manager dated 20/10/2020
A6-copy of complaint issued to NBFC
B1- Copy of notice
B2- Copy of reply notice (subject proof)
B3- Account statement
B4- Reply notice by OP2
B5- Account statement
B6- Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
B7- Loan details of complainant
Dw1-Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
