Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/561

Sharwan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi adv

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 561 dated 10.12.2019                 

                                       Date of decision: 06.11.2023  

 

Mr.Sharwan Kumar s/o Joginder Mishra r/o 120, St. No.5, New Basant Vihar, Noorwala Road, Nr Vohara Karyana Store, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, SCO-2, IIIrd Floor, Phase-V, Mohali-160059, Punjab through authorized signatory.

2.Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, B-XX3369, 1^st Floor, Sandhu Tower-1, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001 through authorized signatory.

                                                                             …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person along with Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh.S.K.Dhir, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute against the OPs with regard to raising illegal demand of Rs.73,954/- by them towards the loan availed for the purpose of purchase of two wheeler vehicle and non-release of the NOC despite repeated visits made by the complainant. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant availed the services of OPs for availing finance of Rs.41,300/- for two wheeler vehicle i.e. Pulsar Motor Cycle. In this regard, finance agreement bearing No.L2WLUD00089418 was executed between the parties on 15.06.2009 for monthly installment of Rs.2699/- for 18 months. It is averred that some installments stands unpaid due to non-presentation of cheques and due to theft of the motor cycle on 16.8.2009 and complainant also failed to pay the installments within period of 18 months. However, tendered sum of Rs.20,000/- to OP2 on 27.03.2012 but despite that OPs refused to issue NOC and again claimed sum of Rs.6990/- as per their account statement showing pending out of sum of Rs.26,990/- which were even paid on 25.05.2014 against receipt. Thereafter, complainant received mobile call on 22.08.2019 from OP2 for clearing defaulting amount of Rs.73,954/- which the complainant has claimed to be illegal and falsely created by the OPs for earning undue profit. So, by filing the present complaint, complainant has sought directions against the OPs to set-aside the demand of Rs.73,954/- raised vide account statement dated 22.08.2019 by the OPs and to issue NOC to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who filed their joint written statement whereby they took the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant had approached the answering OPs and requested for extending financial facility for purchase of Bajaj make motor cycle which request was considered by granting financial facility to the tune of Rs.48,582/- and loan agreement No.L2WLUD00089418 was executed. The complainant stood defaulter in paying the installments of EMI and on 28.03.2012, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- only. The complainant cannot take any pecuniary grounds for demanding NOC as the account is in dues and the same was in the knowledge of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant has failed and willfully neglected to clear the dues towards the loan account and there is no default from the side of OPs to issue NOC as alleged by the complainant. On merits, all other allegations levelled in the complaint against the answering OPs have been specifically denied and it is prayed that the complaint against answering OPs is liable to be dismissed.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex.CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 copies of letters dated 15.03.2012 and 23.03.2012 sent by the Ops to the complainant, Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 copies of payments receipts issued by OPs to the complainant, Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 are copies of statement of account of complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Karan Rana, Assistant Legal Manager of OPs along with documents Ex.R1 i.e. copy of auto loan agreement executed between the parties, Ex.R2 copy of letter regarding informing the complaint qua withdrawal of arbitral proceedings, Ex.R3 copy of letter dated 7.04.2014 sent to the complainant, Ex.R4 copy of loan detail statement of complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records on the file very carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, settlement has been effected between the parties. Pursuant to which, counsel for the complainant has made the following statement:-

“He is ready to pay Rs.8000/- as full and final settlement towards his loan agreement No.L2WLUD00089418 pertaining to auto loan within 30 days from today and OPs may be directed to issue the NOC  within 15 days from the date of payment. His case may be settled accordingly.”

7.                Simultaneously, counsel for the OPs has also made the following statement:-

“As per the loan agreement No.L2WLUD00089418 pertaining to auto loan obtained by the complainant Mr.Sharwan Kumar, the payable amount as per loan summary dated 23.10.2023 is Rs.74,546.66P which is inclusive of all the charges including EMI amount pending. However, the company is ready to settle the matter at near about Rs.10,000/-. However, as per statement given by the complainant, who is ready to repay Rs.8000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of order. He has sent a mail to the company regarding the settlement at Rs.8000/-. Hence, Rs.8000/- be paid by the complainant within a period of 30 days. After the actual realization of Rs.8000/-to the Ops, they shall issue NOC with effect from 15 days from actual realization of the said amount.”

8.                In view of above settlement and recorded statements of the parties today itself, the present complaint stands disposed of with the direction to the complainant to pay Rs.8000/- as full and final settlement towards his loan agreement No.LUWLUD00089418 pertaining to auto loan within 30 days from today and thereafter, OPs after receiving the actual realization of Rs.8000/- from the complainant, shall issue NOC to the complainant within 15 days from the actual realization of the said amount. In view of the settlement, there shall be no order as to compensation and litigation cost is passed. Parties shall remains bound by the statements recorded today itself. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

           (Jaswinder Singh)            (Sanjeev Batra)                                                      Member                         President

Announced in Open Commission                                           Dated:06.11.2023                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.