BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KHURDA AT BHUBANESWAR
C.D. CASE NO 146 / 2017
Bhaskar Chandra Sethy, aged about 41 years,
S/o- Late Udaya Sethy, At/po- Athagarhpatna,
P.S- Kabisurya Nagar,
Dist- Ganjam, Odisha … Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. Bajaj Finance Ltd., C/o Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
Akurdi, Old Material Gate, Jamuna Nagar
Pune- 411035, India,
Through its Managing Director
2. Bajaj Finance Ltd., At- Goutam Nagar,
Near Mausima Chhak,
Bhubaneswar, Dist : Khurda … Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Sri K.C. Prusty
For the OPs : Sri B.P. Kar & Associates
DATE OF FILING: 16.05.2017
DATE OF ORDER : 29.08.2018
O R D E R
MISS K. NAYAK, MEMBER
1. The case has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 to direct the OPs to restrain from recovery of instalment amount from the complainant in respect of the agreement No.L2WBHM04036314 and the vehicle registration No. OD-32A-3483 and to refund the instalment amount received from the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, besides Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant on 28.12.2015, purchased one Bajaj Pulsar 150cc motorcycle bearing registrationNo. OD-32A-3483, chassic No. MD2A11CZ1FCJO7089 and engine No. DHZCFJ79516 by availing loan amounting to Rs50,778/- from the OPs by virtue of agreement dated 31.12.2015 repayable in 18 EMIs of Rs.2,821/- per month commencing from 30.12.2015 till 29.12.2016. as per repayment schedule. The said vehicle was insured under the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide policy No.95749254 for a period of one year commencing from 30.12.2015 till 29.12.2016. To the misfortune, the vehicle met an accident on 01/01/2016 for which the complainant claimed insurance money from the Insurance authority and the claim has not yet been settled. Even then the OPs i.e. financer company collected the EMIs through ECS, for which the complainant file the complaint U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 for appropriate relief.
3. The OPs filed written version denying such allegation of the complainant and contended that as per the stay order of this Forum they have not recovered any instalment from the complainant after 22.05.2017.It has further been contended that as per the mutual understanding, on 31.12.2015 a loan agreement was executed by sanctioning Rs.50,778/- fixing EMIs @ Rs.2,821/- per month and the complainant optioned for repayment mode as Auto Debit Mandate and the agreement copy was handed over to the complainant immediately. It was further been contended that, the dispute of non settlement of the insurance claim is with the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is not a party to this case and being the financer in this present loan transaction the OPs cannot be restrained for recovering the loan dues and also they are not liable for any damage of the vehicle or insurance claim, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing the learned counsels for both the sides and going through the documents filed in support of their respective pleadings, we find that there is no dispute about the loan amount availed by the complainant from the Ops The main dispute of the complainant is with the insurance company, who is not a party to this case. More so the financer company cannot settle the insurance claim of the complainant and non settlement of claim cannot debar the OPs from collection of his loan amount and there is absolutely no cause of action against the present OPs. The complainant has failed to establish that the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case. Hence ordered that:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost and compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day the 29th August, 2018 in the open Forum under the seal & signature of the Forum.
(MISS K.NAYAK)
MEMBER
Dictated & corrected by me
Member (W)
I agree I agree
Member President
Transcribed by Smt.Mamata Kanungo, Sr.Steno
