Consumer panel asks Moneyview to pay Rs 60K to Ranga Reddy resident

Hyderabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy has directed Moneyview (Financial Institution) to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to a complainant. It also directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant.

Case details

S Ghori Mohammed. a resident of Ranga Reddy district had applied for a personal loan of Rs 2.75 lakh online from Moneyview Executive. He requested her to reduce the rate of interest up to 1 percent and the processing fee up to Rs 3,000 since he cannot pay more than Rs 3,000.

Later, she stated that she would reduce the processing charges up to Rs 7,000, as such he should pay Rs 5,155 only. However, he insisted that he could pay only Rs 3,000. The executive replied that she had spoken with her senior and the company could give a discount of Rs 7,000. She asked him to complete the KYC.

Thereafter, Mohammed gave his PAN, and bank details reminding her that he would pay only Rs 3,000 processing fee. The executive sent a link to the page and asked him to submit a selfie. Once he submitted the selfie, the dashboard page appeared.

The executive promised to reduce the processing fee.

The executive promised that the processing fee would be reduced. However, after receiving the data, he found no reduction in the processing fee. Neither the processing fee was reduced to Rs 3,000 as per the request nor was it fixed at Rs 5,155 as per the executive's promise.

It reflected the processing fee of Rs 13,629. The executive told him that she would send the verification code and asked him to disclose the code for changing the processing fee. But, doubting her, Mahammad stated that he did not want the loan. However, she pestered him to share the verification code. As such, he disclosed the received verification code.

The executive deleted the WhatsApp conversation

Immediately, the executive started deleting a few messages from WhatsApp chat. Soon after, he realized Moneyview executives were cheats. However, he requested her to stop the process of the loan which he did not want with a huge processing fee. Despite repeated requests, Moneyview credited an amount of Rs 2,62,363 to his account.

Mohammed also alleged that the concerned authorities had sufficient time of one day to cancel or stop the final process. However, they credited the amount against his interest, as such the opposite party is liable for the deceptive practice. Further, he stated that after a month, they started harassing him for EMI collection with threatening messages and calls. A couple of months later, he realized their fraud and came for a 50 percent EMI settlement.

Mohammed lost his job and his health deteriorated.

The complainant herein further submitted that he faced a tough situation due to the trade practice of the Moneyview team. Due to their harassment, his health deteriorated and his diabetic levels rose from 165 to 232. He was also hospitalized for a few days. He also lost his job since he was unable to focus and concentrate. Alleging unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party, Mohammed sought compensation of Rs 5 lakh and approached the consumer forum seeking justice.

Notices were sent to the opposite party on February 20 but they neither presented themselves nor filed a written version within the stipulated period of 30 days with a grace period of 15 days. Hence opposite party was set to exparte on April 4.

Mohammed filed an evidence affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. He also submitted an affidavit under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act concerning electronic records i.e. WhatsApp and email communication and marked in support of his allegations.

After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that as the WhatsApp communication reveals the executive promised Mohammed to reduce the processing fee of Rs 3,000 and made the complainant complete the process with KYC norms. However, they failed to reduce the processing fee, as such it is unfair trade practice. As alleged by the complainant, due to the said unfair trade practice by the opposite party, he had undergone physical, financial, and mental agony.

Therefore, by considering the physical, financial, and mental trauma of the complainant, the court has considered the opinion that awarding an amount of Rs 50,000 towards compensation is just and reasonable. The opposite party is also liable to pay litigation costs as they compelled the complainant to approach the Commission, which is unwarranted.