21 April 2020
Dear Experts, My husband taken a Personal Loan from Bajaj Finance Services. He applied for a Moratorium Facility( for 3 EMIs) on 3rd April and 5th April vide two independent Formats and also reminding them since then. For receipt of my request, they sent me reference Number also. But as of this day, no communication received from them whether our application was accepted or rejected. Even till this day also, they are calling ( Automatic recording) daily three times. But the Caller Ids are showing as given below. 1. Bajaj Pigs. 2. Madarchouds. 3.Bevarsi Bajaj. 4.Real Bajaj Fins Dogs. 5.Money Flug. 6. Bajaj Beggers. 7.Froude Bajaj. 8. Useless Bajaj. 9.Bajaj Dogs .
All the above land lines phones are received from their Karnataka Recovery Point. So I made several complaints by way of emails to email@example.com But as of this day, no communication from them and they are not stopping for calling. So at this movement what should I have to take action against Bajaj Finance, for using un-acceptable caller Ids leading towards criticizing the dignity of the customers.
22 April 2020
Dear Sir, I endorse the opinion and advise of expert Sh. Raj Kumar Makkad Further you try to get issue a legal notice on the basis of following judgment. ============================================================= ICCI Bank Limited vs. Prakash Kaur case,
The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement reiterated its earlier stand that banks cannot deploy musclemen for recovery of loans from defaulters thus forcing them to end their lives.
"We deem it appropriate to remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilised country and are governed by the rule of law," a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari said.
The court while dismissing the ICICI Bank's plea refused to delete the Delhi High Court's remarks that held the bank and its musclemen responsible for abetting a youth to commit suicide by humiliating him and taking away his motorcycle financed by the largest private sector bank.
It also asked the ICICI Bank to to pay Rs 25,000 as cost of this litigation to the respondents within three weeks and directed the Delhi Police to conclude the investigation against the bank expeditiously within three months, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations.
The court also directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to submit the investigation report in the Delhi High Court.
According to the court, complaints received by Reserve Bank regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive practices followed by banks recovery agents would be viewed seriously.
Reiterating the RBI Guidelines on Engagement of Recovery Agents, the court said, "The Reserve Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider extending the period of ban or the area of ban."
"RBI had expressed its concern about the number of litigations filed against the banks in the recent past for engaging recovery agents who have purportedly violated the law," Justice Bhandari, writing the verdict for the bench, stated.
RBI in a letter accompanying its April 24, 2008 Guidelines had stated that it might consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period.
ICICI Bank had moved the apex court seeking deletion of some paragraphs in the High Court order which had said that "...the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan was taken by him."
"The modus-operandi employed by the banks like ICICI for realisation of their loan amount and for recovering the possession of the vehicle against which loans are given is extra legal and by no stretch of imagination they can be permitted to employ musclemen and goons for recovery of their dues even from a defaulting party," the High Court had observed.
The High Court order had come on a petition filed by Shanti Devi Sharma, the deceased's mother, seeking a probe against the ICICI bank and its staff for the unlawful action, which led to the suicide of her 34-year old son Himanshu Dev Sharma.
Sharma had committed suicide in October 2005 by hanging himself at his house after he was allegedly intimidated and humiliated in front of his neighbours and family by recovery agents employed by the bank for recovering the loan amount taken for his motorcycle.
The ICICI Bank had contended that it was within its rights to recover loans and had followed the required procedure for recovering dues.
22 April 2020
Record the calls from them. send e-mails to Company in this regard. Can block the caller. Send legal notice after lock down. What is the place of Jurisdiction in case of dispute, you have agreed for the place, while signing the documents at the time of loan.
29 April 2020
If any illegal act is done by the recovery agent, the bank appointing him is equally responsible for that hence the role of the Banker's Ombudsman cannot be curtailed in raising the complaint to him.
30 April 2020
Record of complaints dealt by banking ombudsman are broadly classified under following heads:
A. Operation in Deposit Account B. Complaints relating to Interest Rates C. Non-honoring of Bank Guarantee D. Remittances from Abroad E. Remittance related Complaints F. Complaints relating to Loans G. Other Complaints
Precedents regarding Complaints relating to muscleman (Recovery Agents) dealt by Banking Ombudsman could not be traced.