Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 31.

                                                          Instituted on     : 12.01.2021.

                                                          Decided on       : 02.11.2021.

Jagveer Singh, aged 57 years son of Sh. Kitab Singh, resident of House No.868/28-C Bharat Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                   ………..Complainant.

                                       Vs.

Bajaj Finance Limited M.R. Complex, Sonepat Stand, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager/In-charge.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a washing machine from The Rising Sun Rohtak, vide invoice dated 29.11.2019 for Rs.28,300/- and the said machine was financed from the opposite party vide loan amount no.5500CDPN458839 and at the time of finance, the opposite party gave offer of vouchers of Rs.4,000/- on payment of Rs.450/- and he paid the said amount but till today, the vouchers of Rs.4000/- have not been issued to the complainant. The complainant went to the opposite party many times and requested to issue vouchers of Rs.4,000/- but the opposite party avoided the same on one pretext or the other. Mr. Rahul Tomar Assistant Manager Bajaj Finserve gave in writing on the back of invoice that the complainant was given offer of voucher of Rs.4,000/- but due to non completion of formalities, company has refused to give vouchers. The complainant requested the opposite party many times to issue voucher of Rs.4,000/- to him but in vain. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue vouchers of Rs.4,000/- and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post received back with the report of refusal and opposite party failed to appear before this Commission. As such, opposite party was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.04.2021 of this Commission.

3.                Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2021.  

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the bill Ex.C1 complainant had purchased a washing machine on dated 29.11.2019. It is also not disputed that as per noting Ex.C2 made on the back side of invoice Ex.C1, Mr. Rahul Tomar Assistant Manager Bajaj Finserve has submitted  that the complainant was given offer of voucher of Rs.4,000/- but due to non completion of formalities, company has refused to give vouchers. On the other hand, as per email Ex.C4, it is submitted by the company that the required formalities with the customer has been completed. Hence it is proved that offer of voucher worth Rs.4000/- was to be given by the opposite party but the same has been refused on the ground of non completion of formalities whereas as per the email Ex.C4, the formalities have already been completed by the complainant. Hence the refusal of voucher of Rs.4000/- by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is also on record that opposite party did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party stands proved. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record documents “Annexure-JN-A to Annexure JN-E” to prove the fact that complainant had already repaid the whole loan amount to the opposite party. The bare perusal of this statement itself shows that the discount against the voucher of Rs.4000/- has not been credited to the account of complainant or has not been deducted anywhere in the loan amount of complainant. Meaning thereby the respondent has not given any benefit of voucher amount of Rs.4000/- till date to the complainant.  

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) on account of voucher and also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.4000/- from the date of decision i.e. 02.11.2021 till its realization to the complainant.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

02.11.2021.                                      

                                                         ……………………………….

                                                          Nagender Kadian, President.

                                                          .......................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.