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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.