District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.132/2021.
Date of Institution:09.03.2021.
Date of Order: 26.02.2024.
Sanjay Yadav S/o Shri Jaggannath R/o House No. 1784, Gali No. 3, Baba Surdas Colony Tilpat, Presently residing at:- Amarnagar, Near Balaji Hospital, Faridabad (Haryana).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bajaj Finance Ltd., Shop No.20,21,53 and 54, Ist floor, Above RBL Bank, New Tikona Park, Near ICICI Bank, NIT, Faridabad – 121001 (Haryana).
2. Bajaj Finance Ltd. c/o Bajaj Auto Ltd., Old Mumbai – Pune road, Akrudi, Pune – 411035.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Ms. Jyoti Rawat, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Satbir Singh , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the applicant booked a three wheeler at G.D.Automobiles (A unit of Kalyani Commercial Limited), Office at:- 15/2, Mathura Road, Sec. 27A, Opp. Sector-28, Metro Station and pillor NO. 611, Faridabad ph. No. 8826292809 dated 16.12.2017 with the booking amount of Rs.28,000/- with the receipt No. 2656. The complainant purchased (booked) three wheeler which was financed by opposite party No.1 with the amount financed of Rs.1,71,500/- dated 18.12.2017 with 30 instalment of Rs.7882/- (7882*30= 2,36,460/-) and for that first due date was 23.01.2018. The complainant paid his first EMI to opposite party NO. dated on 7th February 2018 and so on, before due dates but once complainant paid his EMI dated 21st June 2020 and for that opposite party charged Rs.862/- as late charges to complainant. The complainant is very poor person and earning his livelihood form this auto. After that complainant always paid his EMI to opposite party before due date. After paying full EMI’s complainant called and visited to opposite party for NOC but opposite party told him for due payment for Rs.16,000/- (pending amount) and when complainant told him that he had already paid full amount then opposite party neglect him after that complainant called opposite party many times but no response came out later on when the opposite party stopped picking phone of the complainant, he realized that he had been duped. Therefore, complainant made many calls to opposite party and visited to the opposite party place but it was totally waste. Thereafter applicant personally met with opposite party but opposite party refused for final settlement and asked for that compoundable interest and when complainant requested for that then opposite party misbehaved to complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of
service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) settle the amount of Rs.16000/- which was totally fake and useless and only to grab money from complainant
b) pay Rs.50, 000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) the complainant also prays for grant of such other relief as may be deemed appropriate by this court.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.2 wish to state that execution of loan agreement was an admitted fact and terms and conditions of said loan agreement was not at all in dispute at any point of time, thus as per clause of loan agreement the complainant was an defaulter. Further the complainant had admitted default. Opposite party No.2 further wised to stated that the opposite party No.2 was only a financier in this transaction and not engaged in the business of sales of vehicle, the opposite party No.2 was not in knowledge of transaction of the alleged amount of Rs.28000/- towards booking amount of subject vehicle, the opposite party No.2 wish to stat that opposite party No.2 had not received the alleged amount of Rs.28000/- towards booking amount hence the specific allegation was denied and same was subject to proof on records. Opposite prty No.2 submitted that the complainant alongwith Mr. Amarjeet Kumar approached the opposite party NO.2 and requested for financial facility for purchase of three wheeler vehicle RE Compact CNG 4S – BS IV. Considering the said rquest and credentials of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 agreed to extend financial facility of Rs.2,36,460/- (which includes financial charges of Rs.64,960/-) with an
EMI of Rs.7882/- per month for the period of 30 starting from 07.02.2018 and the said loan tenure expired on 07.02.2021, later, as per the mutual understanding, the complainant in the capacity as applicant and Mr. Amarjeet Kumar had signed and executed a loan agreement Numbered as L3WFAR05553590. Opposite party No.2 further submitted that at the time of execution of the loan agreement the complainant had gone through and understood all the terms, conditions of the loan agreement and then only the complainant had signed and executed the loan agreement. Opposite Party No.2 further wish to state that, for remittance of EMI’s the complainant opted/chosen one of the repayment mode by way of cash. Complainant understood that, prompt repayment/clearance of loan installments on time without any delay or default i.e on or before 7th of respective month was the core essence of the loan agreement. The subject vehicle was a security to the said loan and was duly hypothecated to opposite party No.2 till closure of the loan towards satisfaction of opposite party No.2. Opposite party submitted that ovid-19 pandemic situation had completely shaken the entire nation as a result of which the Apex Bank of India i.e Resever Bank of India came up with two Master Circulars dated 27.30.2020 and 22.05.2020 which per itted the lending institutions to grant a moratorium on payment of all instalments of loan falling due between 01.03.2020 t 31.05.2020 which was further extended till 31.08.2020. Pursuant to the said master circulars issued by RBI, opposite party No.2 had put in place a Board approved Moratorium policy extending the benefit of the said moratorium to all their customers till 31.08.2020 who wishes to avail the benefit of the same.the complainant not Opted the m moratorium, opposite party No.2 in good faith granted suo moto moratorium to the complainant loan account for the respective month loan EMI’s which was defaulted i.e March 2020, April 2020, May 2020,June 2020, July 2020 and August 2020, as a result of which the loan account
EMI’s for the said months have been rescheduled and the existing tenure of 30 months of the loan had been increased to 37 months. Opposite parpty No.2 submitted that the complainant was very irregular to repay the monthly loan installment to the said loan account and as on 04.03.2011 the complainant was in due of Rs.12,851/- towards EMI arrear and Rs.1293/- towards other due charges, even on repeated request and reminders the complainant paid no heed to the repeated demands of the oppose party No.2 and chosen not to pay the loan arrears, constrained to the attitude of the complainant and with no other alternative the opposite party No.2 recalled loan vide loan recall notice dated 04.03.2021 and informed complainant to remit the net outstanding amount of Rs.14144/- to the said loan account or in failure to surrender the subject loan vehicle. Even after receipt of loan recall notice the complainant failed to close the loan account vide loan recall notice dated 04.03.2011.Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sanjay Yadav, Ex.CW1/B – receipt, Ex.CW/A3 & CW/A4 – receipts,. Ex.CW1/C - Loan Term Sheet/Sanction term,, Ex.CW1/7 – receipt, Ex.CW1/A1 – account statement from 26.12.2017 to18.03.2019, Ex.CW1/A5 to CW1/A10– statement of accounts,, Ex.CW1/E – receipt, Ex.CW1/F to Ex.CW1/V – receipts, Ex.CW/A2 – receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of
Shri Sachin Verma, A.R of Bajaj Finance Ltd., office at Old Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pnue – 411 035,, Ex,R-1 Auto Loan Agreement,Ex.R-2 – CV – Loan application form,, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 27,20202, Ex.R-4 – statement of account, Ex.R-5 – letter dated 04.03.2021.
5. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to: a) settle the amount of Rs.16000/- which was totally fake and useless and only to grab money from complainant . b) pay Rs.50, 000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) the complainant also prays for grant of such other relief as may be deemed appropriate by this court.
6. To prove his case, the complainant led in his evidence Ex,.CW1/A affidavit of Sanjay Yadav and Ex.CW1/B to CW/A2.
On the other hand, opposite party has led in their evidence Ex.RW1/A to Ex. R-5.
7. As per Ex.CW1/E Original receipt of Rs.7882/-. As per original receipt the paid amount is Rs.7882/- and as per the statement of account dated 7.6.2018 vide Ex.CW1/A5 the amount deposited by the opposite parties are Rs.7020/- and remaining amount of Rs.800/- is still pending alongwith interest upto date. As per statement of account of the complainant vide Ex.R-4 the outstanding amount is Rs.9,086.44 with hidden charges.
8. After going through the evidence led by the complainant, the total amount of the loan has already been paid by the complainant. Nothing is due against the complainant. There are very much hidden charges imposed by the opposite parties It shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to over
haul the account of the complainant and adjust Rs.800/- from the date of deposit and waive of the interest . Opposite parties are also directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 26.02.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
