Consumer forum directs Bajaj Finance to issue NOC, pay compensation to Mangalore auto owner
Mangalore: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bajaj Finance Limited to provide all necessary loan-related documents and issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a complainant who alleged deficiency in service. The Commission has also directed the finance company to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 and litigation costs of ₹10,000 for failing to address the grievances of the complainant in a timely manner.
The case was filed by Mohammed Nawaz, a 30-year-old resident of Demmale Gudde House in Mallur Village, Mangalore Taluk, against Bajaj Finance Limited, represented by its Managing Director. The complainant was represented by Advocate Shwetha, while Advocate Rupesh Kumar N appeared on behalf of the finance company. Nawaz had taken a loan of ₹1,90,000 from the Moodabidre Branch of Bajaj Finance Limited on September 30, 2018, for the purchase of an auto-rickshaw under Loan Agreement No. L3WMLR06324087. As per the agreement, he was required to repay the amount in 60 monthly installments of ₹5,526 each.
Nawaz claimed that he had diligently paid his Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs), even during the COVID-19 pandemic when many borrowers struggled to meet their financial commitments. By the time he sought a loan closure certificate to remove the hypothecation of his vehicle (KA19AC6385) from the Regional Transport Office (RTO), he had already paid a total amount of ₹3,28,500.16 towards the loan and interest. However, to his shock, Bajaj Finance refused to issue the NOC, citing an outstanding balance of ₹1,22,356.76. Nawaz disputed this claim, alleging that the company was engaging in unfair trade practices by demanding an additional sum that was neither justified nor documented properly.
After repeated requests failed to yield any response from Bajaj Finance, Nawaz served a legal notice to the company on January 26, 2024, followed by a corrected notice on January 29, 2024. In his notice, he demanded a copy of the loan application and sanction letter, the hypothecation agreement along with other loan-related documents, and the NOC for the removal of hypothecation from the vehicle. Despite these notices, the company allegedly failed to respond, leading Nawaz to file a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In response, Bajaj Finance admitted that the loan was sanctioned but argued that the complainant had defaulted on his payments. The company claimed that Nawaz had availed of a moratorium from March 2020 to August 2020 due to financial constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. It stated that, as a result, the loan tenure was extended from the initially agreed 60 months to 77 months, with additional interest applied for the deferred payments. Bajaj Finance further alleged that the complainant had not cleared the EMIs for the moratorium period and failed to provide proof of payments made. The finance company also contended that the dispute involved complex legal interpretations and should have been addressed in a civil court rather than a consumer forum.
The Consumer Commission, after carefully analyzing the documents and hearing the arguments, found that Nawaz had provided substantial proof that he had made regular payments amounting to ₹3,28,500.16. On the other hand, Bajaj Finance failed to submit any valid evidence to justify its claim of an additional outstanding amount. The Commission ruled that the finance company was guilty of deficiency in service for refusing to issue the NOC and the requested loan-related documents despite the complainant having fulfilled his repayment obligations.
Following the proceedings, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and passed an order directing Bajaj Finance to provide all loan-related documents to the complainant and issue the NOC for the removal of hypothecation of vehicle KA19AC6385 before the RTO. Additionally, the company was instructed to pay ₹25,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused due to its failure to provide proper service and ₹10,000 towards the legal expenses incurred by the complainant.
The Commission specified that the directives must be implemented within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Failure to comply with the ruling would attract further legal action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
