Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 9:07:33 GMT
A financial institution that violates the following articles of the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) is an abuse of rights: 14 (for providing insufficient and inadequate information to the consumer, causing defective service), 39, item IV (for taking advantage of its weakness, ignorance or age to sell unsolicited services) and 51, item IV (for placing him at an exaggerated disadvantage in relation to the service he provides).
reproduction
New facade of a Banco Pan
Reproduction branch
The synergistic sum of these violations led the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul to declare the absolute nullity of a loan contract drawn up between Banco Pan and a retired woman in the district of Santo Ângelo.
In practice, the board converted Portugal Mobile Number List the credit card contract with a consignable margin reserve (RCM) into a simple consigned loan contract, linked to the retirement paid by Social Security — as was the retiree's wish, when contracting the service.
With the appeal granted, the bank was ordered to pay a simple repayment of the amounts charged in excess on the card's monthly invoices and also to repair the moral damages, in the amount of R$5,000, caused to the elderly consumer, as compensation for the inconvenience. and hassles.
Declaratory action
The author went to court after discovering that the payroll loan she had taken out was, in fact, a credit card loan, governed by the "consignable margin reserve" (RMC). In the initial petition for the declaratory action combined with compensation, the retiree guaranteed that she never asked for or received this card — but always received discounts for its use in her paychecks from the National Social Security Institute (INSS).
Cited by the 3rd Civil Court of the district, Pan filed a defense, defending the regularity of its commercial conduct, since the loan was contracted legally. He stated that the author contracted and used the RMC credit card service. Therefore, requests for moral reparation, cancellation of the contract and return of the amount unduly paid (repetition of undue payment) are untenable.
Unfounded sentence
Judge Marta Martins Moreira dismissed the action as unfounded, as she understood that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of an error in contracting the financial service, a burden that was incumbent upon her in accordance with article 373, item I, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC ). Furthermore, through documents that came into the file, she verified that the author signed an agreement to adhere to the regulations to use the assigned credit card. Therefore, given the suitable hiring and demonstrated adherence, there could be no talk of illegal deductions from paychecks.