Skip to main content

Firms get Rs.11-lakh stick for harassing woman over loan

Coming to the aid of a 63-year-old woman facing harassment for over seven years and even threats of being listed as a loan defaulter, the consumer disputes redressal forum here directed the financier firms to pay Rs. 11.25 lakh as compensation to her.

Coming down heavily on the private firm, Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, that later transferred the loan account to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the forum directed them to pay Rs.15,000 as cost of litigation to the woman, Harjit Kaur Bhatia, a resident of Phase 10, SAS Nagar.

Bhatia had taken a personal loan of Rs. 25 lakh at fixed rate of interest of 11% in March 2004. But, despite repeated requests, she was not provided copy of the agreement. She claimed that the financier hiked the rate of interest in June 2006, at which she sought to close down her loan account, expressing willingness to repay the entire loan. But she never heard back.
 
 Now, Kotak Mahindra Bank will have to provide a "comprehensive and correct statement of account of the amount payable" to Bhatia in 45 days, failing which it would have to pay Rs.3,000 a day to Bhatia till the statement is provided.

"The complainant has wished to pay the loan altogether, but the financier has never provided the exact amount payable on any date. It has taken the financier four years to write to complainant that her request has been forwarded to the higher authorities for determination of the amount payable. This is definitely a case of immense harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice," held the consumer forum presided over by Rajan Dewan, on February 18.

The order further reads, "Even as financier claimed that Bhatia [was] not available, surprisingly their agent has been able to collect the monthly installments from her without default. The game of hide and seek is thus being played by the financier and not Bhatia, which to our mind again amounts to harassment and unfair trade practice.

Bhatia had alleged that she was harassed by the financier by visiting her residence at odd hours demanding payment of the monthly installments, and was also threatened she would be blacklisted by Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL), which would adversely affect her credit rating for all purposes.

Citi Financial argued that the loan was never offered on a fixed interest, and that she was duly informed about the hike in rate in accordance with the agreement signed by her. They claimed that Bhatia had paid only 86 installments against 182 till December 2011, and the rest were still pending. During the course of proceedings, the loan was taken over by Kotak Mahindra Bank.

However, the forum noted that Citi Financial failed to provide the signed agreement to the borrower.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/firms-get-11-lakh-stick-for-harassing-woman-over-loan/article1-1188257.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil