Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/475/2018

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/475/2018
Date of Institution	:	27/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	26/12/2019

 

Anil Kumar, aged 54 years son of Sh. Ram Dev resident of House No.2479, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., North Country Mall, 11^th Floor, Balongi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager/Authorised signatory.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashok Kumar, Counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person
	:	Sh. Anupreet Singh Jaura, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, on being applied for, complainant had raised a loan of Rs.24,224/- for two wheeler on 10.11.2009 and the closing date of the loan was 4.8.2011.  The vehicle was purchased by the complainant from M/s Partap Auto and the at the time of purchase he had made down payment of Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.24,224/- was financed by the OP. The complainant regularly deposited 10 installments through his bank, but, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he was not able to pay the balance installments. In the year 2010, OP took over the possession of the vehicle and sold it to some person for Rs.25,000/-.  Maintained, on 17.4.2018, complainant personally visited the office of the OP where demand of Rs.65,000/- was raised. Averred, the action of the OP is arbitrary and it has spoiled the CIBIL score of the complainant without any fault on his part. The complainant is a government employee and going to retire and requires loan to construct his own house, but, will not be in a position to raise the loan as his CIBIL score was spoiled by the OP. The complainant also issued a legal notice to the OP on 17.4.2018, but the same was not responded.  Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. Its ground of defence is, OP extended finance facility to the tune of Rs.43,128/- (i.e. amount financed Rs.34,224/- + Rs.8,904/- towards financial charges for 24 months) and the monthly installment of Rs.1,797/- was to be paid from 5.12.2009 to 5.11.2011.  It is the case of the OP, complainant himself defaulted, therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on its part.  To this effect, reference was made to certain citations. However, OP claimed, vehicle of the complainant was sold for Rs.22,500/- and its case is CIBIL score of the complainant was never spoiled by the OP.  It is also the case of the OP, it has updated the loan status of the complainant to CIBIL as nil dues and the status was updated on 2.11.2014, much prior to the filing of the instant consumer complaint. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted fact, OP has shown liability due to it from the complainant as nil.  The complainant to controvert the averments of the reply has not produced any document to show his CIBIL score was spoiled being a defaulter. It is also the admitted case, the complainant defaulted and reference was made by the OP to the citations Khairunnissa Begum Vs. Branch Manager (Finance), City Bank N.A., II (1999) CPJ 636 wherein the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission held, when complainant had committed default in payment of the installment amounts of the loan amount according to the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement, question of deficiency in service does not arise.  The OP further banked upon case titled as K.A. Murugesan Vs. Jaurilal Bafna & Anr., II (2004) CPJ 300, wherein the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission held complainant cannot get over the terms of the hire purchase agreement by merely labeling the act of the OP as a deficiency in service and resort to the Consumer Forum.
7.     The sole attack of the complainant is, with its written statement OPs has annexed a cash statement of the loan account which shows as on 5.11.2011, balance amount of Rs.18,831/- is due to OP from the complainant. This statement pertains to November 2011 and the reply of the OP is it has already updated the CIBIL score of the complainant in the year 2014 as nil.  However, it should not have shown in the year 2011 balance amount due as Rs.18,831/- though it was nullified in the subsequent updation of record. To this extent, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8.     In view of above discussion, this consumer complaint is partly allowed to a limited extent and the OP is directed to forthwith issue the no dues account certificate to the complainant qua closure of his loan account stating nothing is due to the OP from the complainant. However, we decline to pass any direction qua payment of compensation or cost of litigation.
9.     The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/12/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President