Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/169

Siju K.J,Kannampattu house,madakkimala.p.o,wayanad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Finanace Limited,11nd floor,KVR Towers,Chakkorathu kulam,Calicat. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: Rajeev.P.M

31 Mar 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 169
1. Siju K.J,Kannampattu house,madakkimala.p.o,wayanadKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Bajaj Auto Finanace Limited,11nd floor,KVR Towers,Chakkorathu kulam,Calicat.Kerala2. KVR Motors,Kalpetta North P.O,WayanadWayanadWayanadKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 31 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:


 


 

Brief of the complaint:-


 


 

The Complainant purchased a Motor Cycle No. KL 12C 5156 from Opposite Party No.2 in June 2006. The vehicle purchased availing a loan of Rs.30,000/- from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has to pay Rs.43,200/- including interest by paying Rs.1,200/- each in every month. The amount has to pay before 31.8.2009. Altogether the Complainant has paid Rs.31,174/-. Rs.11,990/- is the balance amount to pay. During January 2008 the Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.30,000/- to be paid. Due to the exorbitant demand the Complainant could not pay the amount. So Opposite Party No.1 has to furnish a detailed account of the Complainant including the details of amount remitted, interest levied with all other details. Hence it is prayed to direct Opposite Party No.1 to collect the remaining amount from the Complainant excluding the penal interest, to collect the remaining amount to the principal amount and interest after the date of payment in total.


 

2. Notices served on both Opposite Parties. 2nd Opposite Party filed version. 1st Opposite Party has not filed his version, even though sufficient time has granted to file his version. 2nd Opposite Party has filed version. In the version, 2nd Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant has purchased KL 12C 5156 Motor Cycle in June 2006. All other contents in the complaint is denied by him. The petition is not at all connected with 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant has no complaint against the vehicle. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.


 

3. Considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.

  1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on Opposite Parties.

  2. Relief and cost.


 

4. Point No.1:- To prove Complainant's case he has filed his proof affidavit. He has also produced Exts.A1 toA4. Opposite Party No.2 filed his version. In the chief affidavit of the Complainant he has stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the receipt of Rs.3,600/- issued by 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant on 12.6.2007. Ext.A2 is the Receipt for Rs.2,400/- issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant on 11.8.2008. Ext.A3 is the Pass Book issued by Panjab National Bank, Kalpetta in the name of the Complainant. It shows that some cheques of the Complainant is honoured by the bank in favour of the Opposite Party. It is not clear how much amount is remitted by the Complainant. Complainant claims that he has remitted Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party. In Ext.A4 1st Opposite Party demanded to the Complainant to pay Rs.56,899/- as on 08.12.2009. But he has not stated how he arrived into that amount. Considering the documents before us it is clear that the calculation of Opposite Party is not correct. It will not reached to Rs.56,899/- as on 9.12.2009. Detailed calculation is not mentioned in the Ext.A4. Hence it is a fit case to apply the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in Ashok Lyland Finance Ltd., V Ramjilal Gupta reported in 2008 CPJ (P-40). Directing the Complainant to remit huge amount is unjust and deficiency of service on the part of 1st Opposite Party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.


 

5. Point No.2:- Complainant claims that he has remitted Rs.30,000/- to the loan amount of Rs.43,200/- for which entire bill is not produced. Any how 1st Opposite Party can recover Rs.43,164/- from the Complainant. He can also collect 2.5% interest for the defaulted amount from the Complainant in addition to Rs.43,164/-


 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to collect Rs.43,164/- (Rupees Forty Three thousand One hundred and Sixty Four only) excluding the amount already remitted by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 can also collect 2.5% interest for the defaulted amount from the defaulted date till the date of payment. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to issue bill mentioning all the details within 30 days of receipt of this order. The Complainant is directed to pay the amount within 30 days of receipt of the bill. No order as to cost and compensation. The order is to be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.

 

 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st March 2010.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 


 

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Siju K.J. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Receipt No. 44948010. dt:12.6.07.

A2. Receipt. dt:11.8.08.

A3.(Marked subject to proof) Copy of Pass Book.

A4. Notice. dt:09.12.09.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.


HONORABLE SAJI MATHEW, MemberHONABLE JUSTICE K GHEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENTHONORABLE P Raveendran, Member