Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/11/2016

Dambarudhara Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Shree Bharat Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 11 OF 2016

                Dambarudhara Mahanta, aged about 51 years,

                S/o- Late Ramananda Mahanta,

                Village- Mahuldiha, P.O- Badapalasa,

                Dist- Keonjhar, Pin- 758002………………Complainant

                                      VRS.

            1. Shree Bharat Bajaj Finance Ltd.

                At- Shankarpur, P.O- Nelung, Dist- Keonjhar

            2. Kumar Motors Auto Ltd.

                At- Dhrupada, P.O- Raisuan, Dist- Keonjhar

            3. Shree Bharat Motors Bajaj Auto Show room,

                Near Silpanchala Police Station,

                P.O/Dist- Balasore

            4. Area Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd.

                A/4 Forest Park, Bhubaneswar-751009

            5. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.

                Old Mumbai- Pune Road,

                Akrudi, Pune- 411035…………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI A.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDENT

              SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

               Adv. for the Complainant - Self

               Adv. for the OP2 - Self

               Adv. for the OP4 &5 - Sri D.P Mohanty & A. Nanda

              

_____________________________________________________________  

Date of Hearing - 21.09.2016                                 Date of Order- 26.10.2016

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member: The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the consumer before the OPs 4&5 and within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant got finance from Bajaj Auto bearing Regd.No.OR-09-Q-7195 from OP4 on payment of Rs.40,081/- towards down payment for his livelihood purpose. After receiving down payment from the complainant, the alleged Auto along with accessories and necessary equipments of which the actual loan was Rs.1,39,000/- and monthly EMI was fixed at Rs.4,350/- per month to be paid by 42 monthly installments and accordingly, the EMI was paid from August 2012 to August 2014 regularly and since from September 2014 to December 2014 the complainant was unable to pay the installments due to his wife’s illness and the OP4 seized the alleged Auto of the complainant on 25.12.2014 without serving any demand notice to the complainant and shifted the alleged Auto to Balasore office of OP4 &5 instead of Bhubaneswar where the office of the financier i.e. OP4 and with negotiation with OPs 4&5 the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,03000/- with OP3 who did not issued any money receipt and clearance certificate to the complainant but later on OP4 issued clearance certificate but not the money receipt of Rs.1,03000/- which was deposited with OP3 and OP3 delivered/handed over the seized Auto to the complainant without accessories and equipments like Jack, Renchi as per complaint and accordingly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.40,081 + Rs.1,08,750 + Rs.1,03,000= Rs.2,51,831/- whereon the dues of OP4 &5 was Rs.2,22,781/- and accordingly, a sum of Rs.29,050/- was taken by OP4 &5 as excess need to be refunded by OP4 &5. Hence, this case:

After service of notice to OPs, the OPs 2, 4&5 have appeared and filed their written versions respectively. But the OPs 1&3 have not appeared in spite of receipt of notice and hence OP1 was set exparte on 6.5.2016 and OP3 was set exparte on 24.05.16.

In the written version of OP2 has stated that the OP was dealing with Bajaj Auto Ltd. from 12.12.2012 and further stated that from the date of occurrence/ cause of action this OP has no role with the transaction. It is to mention here that the alleged vehicle came to this OP after seizure by OP4 &5 which is reflected in the complaint petition of the complainant and accordingly, this OP may be discharged from the liability as arrayed as party and as prayed by the complainant.

The written version filed by OP4 &5 stated that the present dispute is not maintainable in the eye of law and denied all the allegations as raised against them added as parties in this dispute since the OP4 is the area manager of Bajaj Auto Ltd. and OP5 is the manufacturer and hence this OP4 &5 have impleaded as parties in the present complaint and barred by law of limitation as there is no cause of action nor negligent in rendering service to the complainant hence be dismissed with cost.

Heard, the contesting parties. It is not disputed by the OPs 4&5 and to that the complainant is the consumer before OP4. The only dispute as alleged the financier had taken excess amount of Rs.29,050/- as against their outstanding and return back of all accessories (as per para-4) and if failed the price of the accessories during seizure of the alleged auto is the only dispute to be adjudicated.

Perused the materials available in record. The admitted fact of the case is that the OP4 had sanctioned a loan amounting Rs.1,39,000/- to be paid by the complainant in 42 monthly installments starting from August 2012. But due to default in payment of EMIs from September 2014 to December 2014 the alleged vehicle was seizes on 25.12.2014 by the OP4, since the vehicle was hypothecated to OP4 and OP4 has charge over the financed assets as per contract between the complainant & OP4 and has every right to take repossession of its financed assets.

On perusal of the money receipt as paid by the complainant towards EMIs it is revealed that there is some amount paid towards late payment of EMI and during seizure the complainant however paid Rs.1,03,000/- to OP4 and received the alleged vehicle from OP4 and OP4 has issued certificate of cancelation of hypothecation of the alleged vehicle of the complainant on 27.11.15 which reveals the matter was closed from the date of receipt of cancelation of hypothecation endorsement in the RC Book of the alleged Auto.

In view of above discussion, we are of the view that this is a vehicle loan and repossession and release of vehicle was due to default in payment of installments. The payment receipts reveals that there is some late payment made by the complainant. As vehicle had been possessed on account of default in payment of installments and subsequently released on payment of arrear installments and the OPs have issued NOC/ certificate of cancelation of hypothecation can be presumed that no deficiency on the part of the OP4 since agreement permits financier to take possession of the financed vehicle and there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken.

Coming to the liability point, the OPs2, 4&5 were no way liable for rendering service to the complainant since the complainant failed to provide cogent evidence against the OPs2, 4&5 and with these discussion and materials available in record the alleged OPs 2, 4&5 are exempted from their liability.

Hence, Order:

 The complaint petition of the complainant is dismissed having no merit.

             Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

 

 

                                                                                         I agree        

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

          Member                                                                President                                                                                                               

  DCDRF, KEONJHAR                                         DCDRF, KEONJHAR

                                                                            

                                          Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                          

                                    MEMBER, DCDRF KEONJHAR