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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf