Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

cc/234/2014

Saravanan shanmugam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional General Manager,Bajaj Finserv Lending, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 13.05.2014

Date of Reservation      : 01.06.2022

Date of Order               : 23.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.234/2014

THURSDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF JUNE 2022

Saravanan Shanmugam,

No 10,6th Aringer Anna Street,

Co-operative Society Nagar,

Thiruverkaadu,

Chennai,

Tamil Nadu – 600077.

                                                                                                                                                                               ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Regional General Manager,

   Bajaj Finserv Lending,

   8th Floor, Delta wing,

   Raheja Towers, 177,

   Anna Salai,

   Chennai-600002.

   Tamil Nadu.

 

2.The Managing Director,

   Bajaj Finserv Lending,

   Fourth floor,

   Survey No 208/1-B,

   Viman Nagar,

   Pune-411014.

   Maharashtra.

                                                                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s.A.R. Karunakaran

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and  direct the Opposite Parties to close the loan account and waive off the unlawful charges of  Rs.2,00,000/- and  direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the Complainant  and  direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

That complainant took a loan Vide Account No. 403SAL00262868 from Opposite Parties on July 6th, 2013 of Rs. 12,00,000. The total return period of the loan was 60 months with equal monthly installments of Rs. 28,548/-.  Before the loan was sanctioned to him complainant was promised the rate of interest to be 14% and no processing fee and both agreed upon. However, later complainant was charged more than the promised rate of interest. Later upon enquiry complainant discovered that the rate of interest is not 14%   instead   it   is   15%   and  Opposite  Party  stated   that   also Rs. 24,532/- was deducted from the loan amount as Processing fee. It is a clear case of cheating and the Opposite Parties are just trying to make extra money by cheating. The complainant have made several complaints, mentioning the wrong doing of Opposite Parties but there has been no positive solution of it nor have opposite parties ever took the positive approach to resolve the complaint. Also later on Opposite Party gave the customer an offer to cancel his Loan account as un-formal way. That opposite parties are liable for the mis-selling done by opposite party Agent which is an unfair trade practice defined under Section 2 (r) (1) (x) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, Opposite Party are liable for rendering deficient service. The Opposite Parties sent a legal notice which is contrary of their earlier commitments on 1 April 2014. The Complainant sent a letter to the opposite party on April 1^st, April 6^th and May 3^rd 2014 explaining the issues he is facing and asked for the suitable remedy. There has been no communication of whatsoever between the complainant and Opposite Party since then. Hence the Complaint.

3.  Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        That the complaint is defective, the reason being the complainant have made "BAJAJ FINSERV LENDING" as Opposite Party No. (1) and (2) but there is no such company in existence by name "BAJAJ FINSERV LENDING". It is further submitted that "BAJAJ FINSERV LENDING" is only a Brand name of "Bajaj Finance Limited" and the said fact is well known to the Complainant. The complainant has not made 'Bajaj Finance Ltd.' as a party to the complaint and hence, the complaint may be dismissed only on this ground itself. The Complainant had availed a Salary Loan of Rs.12,00,000/- on 30.06.2013, vide Loan Account No.403SAL00262868, agreeing to pay Rs.28,548/- as EMI for 60 months and the rate of interest is 15% p.a (IRR).

        At the time of availing the loan, the Complainant had signed the Loan Term Sheet and also executed a DPN for Rs.12,00,000/- in favour of Bajaj Finance. Further, the Complainant has also signed the terms and conditions and issued an ECS mandate to ‘Bajaj Finance’ towards the payment of EMI dues. The rate of interest of the loan availed by the Complainant was agreed bilaterally to be 15% p.a. (IRR) and the processing fee is as 6% of the loan amount which is appearing in the ‘Loan Term Sheet (LTS) duly signed by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties had deducted a processing fee @1.6 % along with Service Tax @ 12.36 of Processing fee which is Rs. 21,573/- [i.e. Loan Rs 12,00,000/- Processing Fee 1.6% = Rs. 19,200/- + Service Tax Rs. 2,373 (ie, Rs.19200 Service Tax @ 12.35 %)]. Thus, it is evident from the LTS that the agreed rate of interest was 15 % (IRR) and not 14 % as alleged by the Complainant. As on 5^th August, 2014 12 nos. of EMI have been paid by the customer and the 13^th EMI due on 5th August, 2014 has been deposited in the bank. It is evident from Statement of Accounts that EMI are deducted as per Loan Term & Conditions and LTS duly signed by the Complainant. The Complainant had made a request to Bajaj Finance to cancel the loan, while replying to customer query on cancellation of loan the Bajaj Finance's customer care representative informed the Complainant to foreclose the loan. Bajaj Finance sent communication to the complainant through e-mail on 9/12/2013, 13/12/2013, 14/12/2013, 04/02/2014, 05/02/2014 and 25/02/2014 and also letter dated 8/03/2014, letter dated 29/03/2014 and Letter through Advocate on 06/05/2014 were sent to the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant keep on sending various unnecessary emails though Bajaj Finance's customer care people had given him a detailed explanation for the settlement of loan. There is no mis-selling or unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Bajaj Finance as alleged by the Complainant.  An amount of Rs.13,41,756/- as future due installments are due from the Complainant. It is imperative to mention herein that, the Complainant for the reason best known to him taken out a cheque bearing No.082398 dated 17.12.2013 for the amount of Rs.10,32,728/- for the closure of loan. However, the said cheque has been retained by him till date. As per Clause No.31 of the Terms and Conditions signed by the Complainant all claim & dispute will be referred to Arbitrator but the Complainant, if indeed he had a bonafide dispute or complaint, could have raised before an Arbitrator. However the Complainant has failed to do so till date. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Exs-A.1 to Ex-A.8 were marked. The Opposite Parties had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties Exs-B.1 to Ex-B.11 were marked.

5.    Points for Consideration

1. Whether the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and entitled for any other relief/s?

Point No.1:-

        The disputed fact is that the Opposite Parties before sanctioning the loan to the Complainant had promised for 14% interest and no processing fees would be collected, but thereafter he came to know that the Opposite Parties had charged interest at the rate of 15% as against the promised interest @14%. In this regard the Complainant had sent an email as found in Ex.B-7, immediately on receipt of the loan details sent to him on 20.07.2013 as found in Ex.A-1, the Opposite Parties in response to his email, sent a reply email dated 25.07.2013 seeking documents in support of his claim of agreed 14% interest and the deduction of Rs.21,573/- was towards upfront chares which is charged on every loan account and the same could not be refunded. And by email dated 02.08.2013 the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that the upfront charges + service charges itself are processing charges. So, that  is not a different thing. Ex.A-4 is the email dated 05.12.2013 sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant providing the amount for cancellation of loan at Rs.10,61,276/- (11,75,468 – 1,14,192) excluding 4 EMI’s paid by the Complainant and also informed that 5^th Month EMI is under presentation, if the same would get cleared, would process refunded of the said EMI of Rs.28,548/- after 13^th of the month. But in contra, the Opposite Parties had sent a letter dated 29.03.2014 to the Complainant as found in Ex.A-5 wherein it is mentioned that there was no such procedure of cancellation of loan and the amount of Rs.10,32,728/- was kept ready vide cheque and the same was informed, as the same would have been arrived at Rs.11,75,468/- less Rs.1,42,740/- (being 5 Emi’s paid till December, 2013) equals to Rs.10,32,728/-, which would in fact not a correct practice as per their accounting norms and provided a foreclosure chart for settlement reflecting foreclosure charges at Rs.452.83 per day at Rs.11,773.30p and the principal outstanding as on 31.03.2014 as Rs.10,86,755/- totaling Rs.10,98,528.30p claimed as settlement amount as against Rs.10,32,728/- made ready by the Complainant on 17.12.2013 itself. By Ex.B-7, the mail communications taken place between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, the Complainant on 13.12.2013 itself had sought for foreclosure letter to transfer the amount of Rs.10,32,728/- to the Opposite Parties. By Ex.B-10 the Opposite Parties sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 instead of resolving the issue of the Complainant made in his letters dated 01.04.2014, 06.04.2014 & 03.05.2014, which were marked as Ex.A-6 to Exs.A-8 and the receipt of whole has been acknowledged in Ex.B-10.

        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that though the Opposite Parties had promised for a interest at the rate of 14% and also promised that no processing charges on the loan disbursed to the Complainant, as evident from Ex.B-7, wherein the Complainant had communicated as early as 25.07.2013 about the rate of interest and processing charges and  evidenced from series of communications sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties as found in Ex.B-4, Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7, Ex.A-8 and Ex.B-10, the Opposite Parties instead of resolving the said issues had shown interest in foreclosing as cancelling the loan account of the Complainant by receiving onetime payment offered by the Complainant, would clearly show that the Opposite Parties had committed Unfair Trade Practice by adopting a strategy of assuring low interest and no processing fee on the loans offered, to market their business. Hence, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice to the Complainant.

Point No.2:-

        As Point No.1 is answered against the Opposite Parties., the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony suffered ad for a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of this complaint.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed  to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the mental agony suffered and a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint. The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order  till the date of realization.

In the result the complaint is allowed.                                                                                                    

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  23^th of June 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                  T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                MEMBER I                                                          PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	20.07.2013	loan Detalls.
Ex.A2	16.11.2013	loan account statement
Ex.A3	02.05.2014	Bank statement
Ex.A4	05.12.2013	Loan cancel proposal mail
Ex.A5	01.04.2014	Legal notice from opposite party
Ex.A6	01.04.2014	complainant letter-1 to opposite party
Ex.A7	06.04.2014	complainant letter-2 to opposite party
Ex.A8	03.05.2014	complainant letter-3 to opposite party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1		Certificate of Registration issued by the Reserve   Bank of India
Ex.B2		Certificate of Incorporation issued by the   Registrar of Companies
Ex.B3	28-06-2013	Loan Term Sheet signed by the Complainant
Ex.B4	28-06-2013	Loan Application, Demand Promissory Note, Terms & Conditions - Personal Loan (PSBL)
Ex.B5		Statement of Account
Ex.B6		Repayment Schedule for the loan obtained by the Complainant from the Opposite parties
Ex.B7		E-mail Correspondences between the Complainant and the opposite parties on various dates
Ex.B8	08.03.2014	Letter issued by the Opposite parties to the Complainant
Ex.B9	29.03.2014	Letter issued by the Opposite parties to the Complainant
Ex.B10	06.05.2014	Notice issued by the counsel for the Opposite   parties to the Complainant
Ex.B11	26.05.2014	Power of attorney, authorizing Mr.J.Neethirajan   to conduct the above case.

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                      B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                             MEMBER I                                                                            PRESIDENT