Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/25

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Fin.serv - Opp.Party(s)

Jaspreet Singh Adv.

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 10.01.2017

Date of Decision            :   17.01.2017

 

Sanjeev Kumar aged 40 years s/o Sh.Varinder Kumar r/o House No.34/1545, St. No.5, New Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Branch Manager, Bajaj Finserv, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, SCO-35G, Bhari Randhir Singh Nagar, Block-G, Opp. Police Station, Ludhiana.

2.Rajeev Jain, Managing Director, Bajaj Finance Ltd, now Bajaj Finserv, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-144014.

3.Rakesh Bhatt, Chief Operations Officer, Bajaj Finance Limited, now Bajaj Finserv, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-144014.

 

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Heard at the admission stage. Complainant Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, filed complaint by claiming that he availed durable loan from company of Ops for Intex LED vide agreement No.4260CD17317918 and cleared the same. Thereafter, complainant applied for loan from the other company, and then on checking the site of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., he got knowledge that two other loans pending against him with respect to agreement nos. 4260CD00126499 and 4260CD00128448. These loans were in the name of Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma resident of 2/1, Mohalla Chander Nagar, Ward No.3, Village Peeru Banda, Ludhiana. After getting that knowledge, complainant visited office of OP1 and on enquiry got knowledge that somebody else used the photocopy of Pan Card of the complainant and obtained two loans from Ops inconnivance with the officials of the concerned branch situate at Ludhiana. That act of officials of Ops alleged to be a criminal one. Complainant wants removal of his name from CIBIL immediately because he never contracted the above referred two loans. Documents of the complainant were misused by the officials at local level inconnivance with senior officials. Every time, the complainant got reply as if matter will be investigated, but despite that no action has been taken till date. After serving legal notice dated 31.8.2016, this complaint filed for issuing direction to Ops to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL.

2.                From the allegations levelled in the complaint, it is made out that the complainant has pleaded a case of forgery or of commission of act of cheating with him because document of PAN Card alleged to be misused by the officials inconnivance with the alleged loanee (who is an unidentified person). Complainant knows the agreement numbers of the availed loans by the unidentified persons and those are given in para no.4 of the complaint itself. In view of this knowledge of the complainant, certainly complainant can know the name of the person, who actually availed the loans and can file complaint for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC etc. Even in para no.3 of the complaint, it is claimed that the officials of branch office did criminal act of disbursing the loans to  unidentified person. So, virtually allegations of cheating and forgery are levelled. As and when allegations of theft, forgery or of cheating levelled, then those can be adjudicated after adduction of elaborate evidence. As and when elaborate evidence required for proving the allegations of theft, forgery and cheating, then Consumer Forum cannot decide the case is the settled proposition of law laid down in cases P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India-II(2015)CPJ-54(N.C.); Bright Transport Company vs. Sangli Sehkari Bank-II(2012)CPJ-151(N.C.); Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Munni Mahesh Patel-IV(2006)SLT-436=IV(2004)CPJ-1(S.C.); Reliance Industries Limited vs. United India Insurance Company-I(1998)CPJ-13(N.C.); M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. vs. Union Commercial Bank-III(1992)CPJ-50(N.C.); Sangli Ram vs. General Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.-II(1994)CPJ-444=1994(I)CPR-434;Harbans and Company vs.State Bank of India-II(1994)CPJ-456=1994(I)CPR-381 and Jayanti Lal Keshav Lal Chouhan vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.-1994(1)CPR-396. It is so because proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature and complicated question of law and facts like that of commission or non commission of fraud cannot be investigated by the Consumer Forum. So, complaint with allegations of commission of forgery or of cheating is not maintainable before this Forum. Rather, complainant can avail appropriate remedy of approaching the police or the Court concerned. This complaint being not maintainable, dismissed at admission stage itself with the observation that complainant may approach the concerned authorities or the Court. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

3.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                         (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:17.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.