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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...