Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/194/2015

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Auto Finance - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/194/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	26/03/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	05/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Balbir Singh son of Sh. Puran Chand, resident of House No. 31, Type-III, Block-3, CRPF Camp, Hallo Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

……….. Complainant.

VERSUS

 

1.   Bajaj Auto Finance c/o Bajaj Auto Limited, Ground Floor, B/60-61, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi – 110028, through its Legal Manager.

 

2.   Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, SCO 2, Phase-5, Mohali, through its Manager.

 

3.   Hind Motors Limited, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

……….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH.P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gagandeep Toni, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Karan Grover, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

         

1.      Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that, the Complainant got his Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No. CH-01-AQ-4191 financed from Opposite Party No.2 on 27.11.2012 (Annexure-A) and had cleared the whole loan amount in June, 2014, whereafter he was issued No Objection Certificate (for brevity ‘NOC’) by the Opposite Party No.2 on 30.6.2014 (Annexure-B). Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Party No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.6243/- from the Complainant, which he ignored as he had paid regular monthly EMIs towards the aforesaid loan. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 threatened the Complainant to deposit Rs.5,000/-, lest his vehicle would be impounded. Perforce, the Complainant deposited the said amount on 27.11.2013 (Annexure-C) with the Opposite Party No.2. It has been alleged that the said amount was never deposited by the Opposite Party No.2 in its account, rather it was deposited in the account of one Mr. Balbir Singh of Hoshiarpur who was defaulter of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (Annexure-D). Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/-, but to no avail. Hence, the present Complaint.    

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 25.05.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the Complainant had never made a default in payment of monthly EMIs hence the question of demanding Rs.6243/- from him does not arise. It has been denied that answering Opposite Party never called the Complainant in the month of Nov. 2013 for payment of Rs.5000/- hence question of threatening the Complainant regarding repossession of the vehicle does not arise. It has been asserted that the Complainant had never visited the answering Opposite Party for remitting the alleged amount of Rs.5,000/- hence question of depositing the said amount against the different loan account does not arise. Denying all other allegations Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 has filed reply, inter alia, pleading that neither any deficiency nor any negligence has been alleged in the entire Complaint against it and no relief has been sought qua it. Denying all other allegations, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. 

 

7.      The Opposite Party No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

8.      The Complainant has produced, before this Forum, the original receipt of deposited amount of Rs.5,000/- dated 27.11.2013, in his name. The Opposite Party No.2 has not endorsed the name of the father of the Complainant or the address of the Complainant on the said deposit receipt. There is also no denial on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 about the authenticity of the receipt of Rs.5,000/-; neither it has any explanation about the non-endorsement of father’s name/address of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to place on record any deposit form, duly signed by the Complainant or his representative, containing the alleged account number. The Opposite Party No.2 has accepted the fact of receipt of Rs.5,000/- from the Complainant, but has contended that it has deposited the said amount in the account of another Mr. Balbir Singh of Hoshiarpur, and has endorsed the account number of the said another Mr.Balbir Singh on the deposit receipt and has not accordingly accounted for in the account of the Complainant.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed, to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, along with int. @9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of realization;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

           The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] from the date of deposit, till it is paid. Further, the compensation amount as per sub-para [b], shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/-. 

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05^th November, 2015                                            

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”