Orissa

Kendujhar

16/2015

Sri Arun Ku. Aruk - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.R. Rana & G.N. Jena

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 16 OF 2015

    Sri Arun Ku. Aruk, aged about 40 years,

    S/o- Shyam Aruk of village- Jamudiha,

    Post- Kodipasa, P.S- Town, Dist- Keonjhar…………………….Complainant

                              Vrs.

1. M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd.

    Regd. Office at Akrudi,

    Pune-411035

2. Collection Manager,

    Bajaj Finance Ltd.

    Goutam Nagar (Near BMC Office),

    Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, Odisha

3. M/s. Bajaj Show Room,

    At- Dhangarpada, P.O- Keonjhargarh,

    Dist- Keonjhar, Odisha, Pin- 758001.……………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT- Sri Akshaya Kumar Purohit, PRESIDENT

                 Sri S.C. Sahoo, MEMBER

                Advocate for Complainant-Sri R.R. Rana & Sri G.N. Jena

                Advocate for OPs- Sri P.K. Jena & D.P. Mohanty

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing -04.05.2016                                                                                                                                Date of Order - 21.07.2016

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member: The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant has purchased a Motorcycle by availing loan from OP1 &2 to be receipt in 2 years by 24 EMIs @ Rs.1781/-. Accordingly, the complainant went on paying the EMIs from 25.10.13 to 30.11.2014 regularly and paid a total sum of Rs.22,529/- till 30.11.2014. But the complainant due to his illness could not be able to pay the EMI of April 2014, September 2014 & December 2014 i.e. 3 installments as on 22.01.2015 and the OP1 &2 assured the complainant to the arrear dues of 3 installments during March 2015. But the collection agent namely Butu Sahoo & Ganesh Sahoo of OP2 &3 while the complainant moving on the way snatched away the alleged motorcycle by force without giving any prior notice as the OPs 1 &2 engaged muscleman is unjust and beyond the provisions of law which amounts deficiency of service and then after the complainant requested the officials of OP1 &2 who were carrying business at this Jurisdiction but refused to release the motorcycle and threatened to sell out the same and the OP2 &3 served a notice to complainant to pay a sum of Rs.28,266/- which was higher than the actual due which amounts Unfair Trade Practice by the OP1 &2 and such action of the OP1 &2 puts the complainant financial loss and mental agony. Hence, this complaint:

         After service of notice the OP1 &2 appeared through their engaged counsel and filed their joint written version stating that the allegation and submission made by the complainant in the complaint are denied and disputed and averred allegation as alleged are matters of record the OP1 &2 submitted that the complainant himself approached to this OPs on 14.9.2013 and requested to extend financial assistance for purchase of the alleged motorcycle bearing No. OD-09B-0335 (Bajaj Discover Drumes) by agreeing all terms and conditions of the agreement signed and extended numbered as L2WKNJ02641242 and the OPs 1&2 financed to the tune of Rs.42744/-(including financial charges of Rs.9744/-) and to be repaid within 2 years by 24 monthly installments @ Rs.1781/- each without any delay or default i.e. on or before 5^th of respective month and the complainant had chosen repayment mode by signing Auto debit mandate remittance of EMI for 24 months and the subject of vehicle was duly hypothecated to OP1 &2 as security to the said loan till closer of the loan and hence, the complainant as per annexure- ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ out of the said contract is clear that was in gross default and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

        Heard, the learned counsels of the contesting parties on complaint petition as well as violation petition together and perused the materials available in record. It is not disputed by the contesting parties that the alleged motorcycle was financed vehicle and the financed amount was to be repaid as per terms and conditions of agreement entered by the complainant with the OP1 &2. But it is disputed by the complainant that repossession of the alleged motorcycle by means of force deploying muscleman and without prior notice and without inventory.

        And to this the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that prior to seizure the OPs have not issued any demand notice of default amount/ arrear outstanding for payment by the complainant and on prayer of complainant U/s.13(3b) of C.P Act 1986, this Forum has directed vide order dt.07.4.15 the OP1 &2 to release the alleged motorcycle on receipt of Rs.7000/- (70%) out of Rs.9525/- towards EMIs till March 2015, if not auctioned earlier and also directed the complainant to pay Rs.2529/- towards balance outstanding EMI dues to be paid along with EMI for the month of April 2015 within due time and also further directed to pay the future EMIs regularly without any break. But the OPs did not release the motorcycle violating the order dt.07.4.15 though the complainant proceeded to Bhubaneswar for release of his motorcycle and in this respect the complainant has filed an affidavit which was taken into consideration and the OPs on dt.08.5.15 at the time of appearance has filed a memo of understanding by agreeing to release the alleged motorcycle in favour of the complainant on receipt of Rs.9529/- from the complainant which was deposited in this forum returned back to the complainant as the OPs were unable to release the alleged vehicle. But the alleged vehicle was released on 04.8.15 to the complainant in the premises of this Forum as per memo of the OP and without payment of ordered amount of Rs.9529/- as directed on 04.6.15 to the OPs.

        On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the OPs have never violated the interim order dt.07.4.15 since there was a direction to OPs to release the motorcycle on receipt of Rs.7000/- out of Rs.9529/- and the balance Rs.2529/- to be paid along with EMIs for the month of April 2015. Since the EMI of April @ Rs.1781/- was the dues to be paid along with Rs.2529/- balance EMI dues as per order dt.07.4.15 & dt.04.6.15 wherein the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.11,310/- which is inclusive of ordered amount and EMI of May 2015/- and the Ops are no way violated the order of this Forum rather the complainant has already been failed to carry out his contractual liability.

        On perusal of both the petitions along with recurring expenditure spent by the complainant through an affidavit on release of vehicle as per order dt.07.4.15, dt.04.6.15 & 22.6.15 along with the written version filed by the OPs along with the Annex- A, B, C, D, E, F filed by the OPs, we come to conclusion that the OPs are not deficient in rendering service to the complainant nor adopted Unfair Trade Practice rather the OPs have performed their obligation within the limit of contract and taking into consideration of the petition U/s.25 & 27 of the complainant for noncompliance of interim order passed by this Forum on .07.4.15, dt.04.6.15 & 22.6.15 the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.2250/- out of an estimate Rs.3650/- for repairing of the vehicle as damaged is a manufacturing one not certified by any repairer at the time of release in this Forum.

       With these pleadings, arguments on both the complaint petition vis-a-vis violation petition of the complainant and basing on materials available in record it will be reasonable by OP to compensate the recurring expenditure spent by the complainant as repaired. Hence,                          

O R D E R

The OP1 &2 is directed to receive the outstanding amount of loan as on dt.05.9.15 i.e. the date of last repayment by deducting a sum of Rs.3960/- towards recurring expenditure incurred by the complainant on repairing of the alleged vehicle and towards journey to Bhubaneswar and the complainant is also directed to repay the loan outstanding of the OP1 & 2 as on dt.05.9.15 within 30 days from receipt of this order failing which the OP1 & 2 are at liberty to proceed against the complainant/alleged motorcycle as per agreement/contract executed by the complainant.

     Accordingly the complaint petition & the violation petitions are disposed of.                                                                                               

 

                                                                                                                                                  I agree                                                                                       

           (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                     (Sri A.K. Purohit)                  

                  Member                                                                                                                  President                               

       D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar                                                                                                D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar

 

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                          (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                              

                                                                               Member, D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar