Thread: Kotak Mahindra car loan

Dear Sir,
Myself Sagar Mal Rathi, I had taken a car loan under Ag No 1589443 & Car No. was Hyundai Getz - MH 04 CJ 7036 which i have surrender to the bank on dated 26/09/07. Now i want 0 balance showing statement (NOC) for CIBIL purpose. Kindly send me those letters / statements on my address which is -
A-102 Tirumala Apt.
Ujjawal Nanda Hs. So.
Near Ryan Intl. School,
Evershine Nagar,
Link Road, Malad W
Mumbai 400 064

Do the needful as soon as possible
Thanking you
Sagar Mal Rathi
98210 76038

Dear Sir,

I have taken car loan under a/c no. Ag No CF 3227459 and car name & no. was Hyundai Santro - MH 03 S 3856 . I have surrender this car on dated 23/6/07. Now i want NOC for CIBIL Purpose. So Kindly send me that letters to my address which is -
A-102 Tirumala Apt.,
Ujjawalnanda HS. So.,
Near Ryan Intl. School,
Evershine Nagar,
Link Road, Malad W
Mumbai - 400 064

Thanking you
Vishnu Rathi
98210 76038
rathi_1960@yahoo.com

Dear Sir,
Myself Sagar Mal Rathi, I have taken car loan under Ag No 1589592 Car name & No was Hyundai Getz - MH 04 CJ 7037. has already been given to Mr. Nilesh Tanna having his address at 1505, challenger tower no.4, Thakur village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101 towards the adjustment of the amount & Mr. Tanna has taken the vehicle with all responsibility and risks which i have informed to the Bank on 1/08/08 & also informed to the concerned police station and R.T.O. about this case on the same day. & i agree that this is my liability to clear the a/c But feeling very sorry to inform you that now I am unable to pay due amount of this car loan I got heavy loss in my business in the year of 2006. I tried my best to clear all the outstanding amounts but now I don’t have capacity to pay due amounts. & now I am completely depended on my relatives and My credibility is also zero in other banks due to name in CIBIL.. I have informed over telephone to Recovery department executives of your bank about my current position. Now its my polite request with bank to settle this loan with the small value with considering my position.

Do the needful as soon as possible
Thanking you
Sagar Mal Rathi
98210 76038
Rathi_1960@yahoo.com

Hi,

I have a car loan with Kotak Bank and this loan was issued on in May 2009 and its 6 months now I have not received loan agreement papers nor welcome kit. When I reaching my loan representative he said it takes 2-3 months etc, later he said will follow and confirm, when followed up he said he came but return as no one was at home which is very unusual. Now it’s almost 6 EMI i paid representative is not entertaining and saying call customer service and find I can't do anything. I called customer and they are saying it says dispatch in July but I have not received yet when I asked them to resend they said it will be chargeable, which I don't think I should pay because I didn't lose it I have not received yet. I asked her to find if dispatch than confirm who received it and where, I got reply will confirm and let me know but still , I don't hear from them.
2nd Issue:
When I called customer service I got to know I'm charged at 19.11% for my loan and we agreed to take loan at 18% with Pranvash (Car Loan Representative seats in Velocity Used Car office at Andheri (E), Chakala. The representative cheated us and above that didn't help in getting loan agreement document.

I don't know whom to reach now. I was said Mr Faiz number (+919819070719) will reach me but he never turn up nor he reachable when I try calling him.

Please assist as its very serious issue. I want to resolve this ASAP.


I don't know whom to reach now. I was said Mr Faiz number (+919819070719) will reach me but he never turn up nor he reachable when I try calling him.

Please assist as its very serious issue , I want to resolve this ASAP.

Dear Sir,

To get any solution for your complaint kindly send a complaint letter to the Head Office of the Bank. Send it through registered post and keep a copy of that letter also. Hope you will get any positive response from there.

i borrow the car loan no. cf4304080 kotak mahindra agra in the name of seema arora and i visited of agra office as on dt. 30-12-2009 i ask for the intrest statement for the period 1/4/2008 to 31/03/2009 purpose of income tax but i cant recieve statement still now but i contact daily mr.imran ali mno. 09760098294 they some time pick the phone and some time not respoce me today they said to me i send your statement on your email but i cant recieve still now.that is your service it is very good service and continue it in future it better for your respcted orgnisation.
seema arora
4/28 vibhav nagar agra
mno. 09837079159

Dear Sir,

I have taken car name of mittal jute co.&taken loan in kotak mahindra year of aprail 2004 & car number was honda city-HR-06K-9078 . i compleat our loan Now i want NOC . So Kindly send me that letters to my address which

Thanking you
mittal jute company
prop- tanuj mittal
803-huda sec- 11,panipat(haryana)
parvatiindustries_kutail@yahoo.com
Mb.9255937373---9812000504

Case No.812/06

Madan Lal Khurana, 561, AShok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 18.

………Complainant

Versus

1. Jujhaar Finvest, DMA, (Office): GE Country Wide, Consumer Finance Services, C-74, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi– 110026.

(Resi.) : C-44, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 26.

2. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., Roots Tower, DDA District Centre, Near Scope Complex, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 92.

……..Opposite Parties



CORAM : J.P. SHARMA : PRESIDENT

: S.M. MAZUMDAR : MEMBER
: DR. PREMLATA : MEMBER

O R D E R

J.P. SHARMA (PRESIDENT) :

In brief, complainant’s case is that he purchased a Maruti Zen car bearing No.DL-5C C-3829 for Rs.2,50,000/- on 08.12.2005 through M/s.M.N.R. Motors, Kirti Nagar. In this connection, complainant contacted Sh.Mukul Virmani, agent of OP-1 M/s.Jujhaar Finvest as he intended to raise loan for the purchase of the car. An agreement was entered into between the complainant and OP-1 according to which the amount sanctioned had to be received by M/s.Jujhaar Finvest and then all the sanctioned amount was to be delivered to the complainant. For raising this loan, complainant mortgaged his car with OP-2. An agreement was also entered into between the complainant and OP-2. The grievance of the complainant is that though the total sanctioned amount of loan was Rs.1,14,000/- which was duly disbursed by OP-2 to OP-1, OP-1 after receiving the payment from OP-2 in Dec., 2005 paid him only Rs.1.00 lac vide two cheques in March, 2006. It is also the grievance of the complainant that it was OP-2 who disclosed and informed the complainant that the sanctioned loan of Rs.1,14,000/- had been disbursed to OP-1. Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 who retained Rs.14,000/- out of total sanctioned amount of Rs.1,14,000/- and also did not release the total amount of Rs.1,14,000/- in Dec., 2005 after having received the same from OP-2.



OP-1 M/s.Jujhaar Finvest in the beginning was proceeded exparte but towards the end of the enquiry proceedings, the exparte orders were got set aside and written statement was filed by OP-1. The plea of OP-1 has been that the amount of Rs.14,000/- was fixed between him and the complainant as fee of liaison work and therefore, the present complaint does not lie against them. OP-1 also pleaded that the amount was released to the complainant in the month of March, 2006 and it therefore, cannot be said that the amount was retained by them.



OP-2 in their written statement pleaded that there is no allegation by the complainant against them and so the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against them and was liable to be dismissed. According to OP-2 they had released the loan amount of Rs.1,14,000/- to be availed by the complainant to OP-1 who was supposed to release the same for finance against vehicle No.DL-5C-C-3829.



In the rejoinder filed to the written statement of OPs. 1 and 2 complainant controverted the case of OPs. and reiterated his case as set out in the complaint.



Affidavits were filed by the parties in support of their rival contentions.



We have heard Sh.Omendra Sharma – Ld. Counsel for complainant, have gone through the material on record and have considered their relevant contentions. None appeared for OPs. at the time of final arguments.



At the very outset we would like to observe that a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 M/s.Jujhaar Finvest is clearly made out. As is the case of the complainant, OP-1 in the written statement admitted that out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,14,000/- by OP-2 for the complainant, a sum of Rs.14,000/- was retained by them. OP-1 has pleaded that this amount of Rs.14,000/- was retained by them as fee of Liaison work. However, OP-1 failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish that the amount of Rs.14,000/- was required to be paid by the complainant towards the Liaision fee to OP-1. It is established on record from a copy of the payment voucher of OP-2 M/s.Kotak Mahindra that an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- for being paid to the complainant was released to M/s.Jujhaar Finvest on 26.12.2005. However, it could not be denied even by OP-1 in their written statement that only an amount of Rs.1.00 lac was released out of Rs.1,14,000/- received from OP-2 to the complainant and that too in March, 2006 i.e., after about three months of their having received the loan amount from OP-1. Retention of this amount for a period of about three months by OP-1 after receipt thereof from OP-2 for being release to the complainant also amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 as such is liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.14,000/- retained on the pretext of liaison fee.



As a result of what has been discussed above, we direct OP-1 to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.14,000/- which has been retained by them without any agreement between them and the complainant. OP-1 shall also have to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part. No case of deficiency in service against OP-2 vis.-a-vis the complainant is, however, made out. The complaint against OP-2 M/s.Kotak Mahindra is, therefore, dismissed.

OP-1 shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room.