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.
German Chancellor's visit to Bengaluru was private, pre-scheduled; BJP 'politicising' it: Minister
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Minister M B Patil on Wednesday defended Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy CM D K Shivakumar, saying they did not receive German Chancellor Friedrich Merz during his visit here as it was a private, pre-scheduled programme.
Patil accused the opposition BJP of "politicising" the visit of an international dignitary and termed it "irresponsible."
Merz visited Bengaluru on Tuesday, the second day of his two-day visit to India. He was received at the Kempegowda International Airport by Patil and senior state officials.
The opposition BJP, taking a dig at Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar, alleged that they skipped receiving the German chancellor and instead chose to be in Mysuru to receive Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who was transiting to neighbouring Tamil Nadu.
“The Hon’ble German Federal Chancellor’s visit was entirely a private, pre-scheduled programme, limited to visits to Bosch and IISc, with no official talks with the state government,” Patil said in a post on 'X'.
ALSO READ: HC grants anticipatory bail to man accused of making derogatory posts on Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat
“In such a situation, the question of the CM or ministers formally receiving him does not arise. Had there been any government-level engagements, the Hon’ble chief minister himself would have led the reception,” he said.
Patil said that, as instructed by Siddaramaiah and in keeping with protocol, a formal welcome and see-off were extended.
“The BJP’s attempt to politicise even a private visit of an international dignitary is petty and irresponsible,” he claimed.
Accusing the Congress government of “misplaced priorities and missed opportunities”, Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly R Ashoka earlier said that welcoming the head of government from one of the world’s strongest economies had been relegated to the back seat, while “political loyalty and high command pleasing” were given precedence over Karnataka’s global standing.
During his visit, Merz toured the India headquarters of German technology major Bosch at Adugodi and the Centre for Nano Science and Engineering (CeNSE) at the Indian Institute of Science, before departing from Bengaluru.
Home Minister G Parameshwara said the state government was not invited to any of the events attended by the German chancellor and added that it appeared he had arrived and departed without official state-level engagement.
“Patil went as minister-in-waiting, but the state government was not invited to any of the events he attended. He held a press conference, and the German delegation brought its own press. Even the local press was not invited,” Parameshwara said.
“In a way, he came and left without the state’s involvement. Such situations should not arise. We also want to show our respect to foreign dignitaries who visit our state,” he added.
Parameshwara said the state government would have acted in accordance with directions from the Ministry of External Affairs and added that when a foreign head of government visits a state, the state government should be given an opportunity to extend its respects.
Referring to India’s federal structure, he said that while practices may differ elsewhere, both the Centre and states have defined roles in India, and the state government should be involved when a foreign head of government visits.
When asked whether the Centre had officially informed the state government about the visit, Parameshwara said he was not aware and that there was a need to ascertain what directions were issued.
