Bangalore District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Finance Liable For Failure To Close Loan Account, Charge Late Fee

Brief Facts:

The Complainant has been a loyal customer of Aditya Birla Finance since June 2022 and timely repaid previous loans using Paytm Postpaid. Despite this, after paying his last instalment of Rs. 3,040/-, Aditya Birla Finance imposed a late fee of Rs. 885/-. The Complainant also requested discontinuation of its services due to valid reasons but was allegedly harassed by the agents demanding a late fee of Rs. 1,000/-, later increased to Rs. 3,952/-. The Complainant contended that Aditya Birla Finance's representatives behaved improperly, using threats and abusive language during communications. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”).

In response, Aditya Birla Finance contended that the complaint was flawed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically Paytm, through whom the services were availed. It argued that this omission prevents the commission from providing complete relief. It explained the nature of the Paytm postpaid facility, stating that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs. 28,000/- through this service, with repayment options including IMPS, NEFT, debit card, and internet banking. Furthermore, it denied allegations of misconduct and argued that any issues related to technical glitches or refunds should be directed to Paytm, as per the terms of the loan agreement.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the documentary evidence revealed transaction details showing the Complainant's payment to Aditya Birla Finance via Paytm. It held that the Complainant was deprived of the intended service despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue through phone calls and emails.

The District Commission held that Aditya Birla Finance's conduct was unprofessional as it hindered a resolution and failed to provide a solution to the Complainant's grievances. It further deceived the Complainant by providing deficient and deceitful service and failed to deliver the promised benefits despite full payment by the Complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held that Aditya Birla Finance demonstrated a clear deficiency in service.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Aditya Birla Finance to refund the excess amount received, close the loan account, and pay interest at 9% per annum to the Complainant. Additionally, it was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental harassment, agony, and litigation expenses to the Complainant.

Case Title: Ganapati Bramha vs The Authorized Signatory, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2023

Date of Order: 15.06.2024