A Comparative Legal Study of Consumer Credit Payment Defaults: Insights from Islamic and Positive Law

Abstract

Background: In today's globalized society, the demand for electronic goods has significantly increased. However, not all consumers can afford to purchase these goods outright, leading many to rely on credit-based purchasing systems offered by companies such as PT. Columbus in Bandar Lampung.

Aims: This study investigates the legal remedies available for handling consumer defaults in credit payments, analyzed from both Islamic and positive law perspectives. The primary aim is to explore the settlement mechanisms adopted by PT. Columbus and assess their alignment with Islamic jurisprudence and Indonesian civil law.

Methods: Employing a qualitative descriptive method, data collected through field research involving observations, interviews, and documentation.

Results: The findings reveal that PT. Columbus addresses consumer payment delays through two approaches: litigation via court proceedings and non-litigation methods such as preventive collection efforts, rescheduling, reconditioning, restructuring, and providing payment relaxations. Additional measures include imposing penalties and repossessing goods when necessary. From the Islamic law perspective, the imposition of fines is permissible only when the consumer is financially capable but intentionally defaults, and the collected penalties must be allocated for social purposes. Repossession is permitted only if accompanied by the return of the original payment. Under positive law, these measures are acceptable if conducted in accordance with relevant provisions of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata) and Criminal Code (KUHP).

Conclusion: Overall, while PT. Columbus's legal remedies largely align with both Islamic and positive legal frameworks, certain practices require adjustments to fully uphold the principles of fairness and social justice promoted by Islamic teachings.