Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/206/2014

Pardeep Kumar S/o Sumer Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.206 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.05.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 23.10.2017.

Pardeep Kumar, aged 34 years, son of Sh. Sumer Chand, resident of Village Mehrampur, P.O. Harnaul, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                        Versus  

Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.), Branch Office: SCO 125, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. 

 

….Respondent.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for complainant.   

                  Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                The complainant-Pardeep Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he has availed personal loan of Rs.43,000/- from the Op finance company and the Op disbursed an amount of Rs.39,616/- to the complainant on 30.07.2009.  It is alleged that the said amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.2616/- each including flat interest and the first instalment was due on 05.09.2009.  The complainant had paid 23 installments regularly without any default but there was some delay in payment of 24^th installment and the cheque was dishonored but on receipt of notice to this effect, the complainant made payment of cheque amount of Rs.2616/- but the Op with malafide intention filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant on false ground in the court of C.J.M., Jagadhri.   It is further alleged that the entire instalments were completed in the month of March, 2011 but the Op remained kept receiving the extra instalments and received 9 instalments in excess to the actual loan amount and still demanding more amount without any cause.  The complainant requested the Op to issue “No objection certification” but the OP did do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to return the excess amount of 9 installments i.e. Rs.23,744/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant availed personal loan of Rs.43,000/- on 30.07.2009.  The monthly installment to be paid per month was  Rs.2616/- and the contract period was of 24 months.  The rate of interest was 23.00% (flat) p.a. towards payment of loan installment.  The complainant is chronic defaulter of the PDC’s issued by him and several cheques were dishonored due to reason interalia “Insufficient Funds”.  Bouncing of cheque is criminal offence and hence, the Op filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op did not receive any excess amount towards the above-said loan.  It is also submitted that the said loan is still active as an amount of Rs.4336/- is pending towards the said loan and hence, NOC was not issued to the complainant.  The other pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhushan A. Jiwade, employee of the company as Annexure-RA alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R13 and closed evidence on behalf of Op.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             During the course of arguments, the complainant filed an application on 10.10.2017 for additional evidence i.e. for placing on record copy of order dt. 04.08.2014 passed by ld. J.M.I.C. Jagadhri in criminal complaint No.1083 of 2011 titled as Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Pardeep Kumar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.  Reply to the application filed, whereby Op opposed the application moved at belated stage of arguments.  Heard on the application and the same is allowed as the document to be placed on record is an attested copy of order passed by J.M.I.C. Jagadhri and no prejudice is going to be caused to anybody.  The same is marked as Annexure C-3.    

8.             After hearing ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record, the controversy between the parties is  whether the Op has received the excess amount of 9 instalments from the complainant or not?.

                The version of the complainant is that he has availed personal loan of Rs.43,000/- from the Op finance company and the Op disbursed an amount of Rs.39,616/- to the complainant on 30.07.2009.  The said amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.2616/- and the entire instalments were completed in the month of March, 2011 but the Op kept on receiving the extra instalments and received 9 instalments in excess to the actual loan amount and still demanding more amount without any cause.

                On the other hand, the plea of the Op is that at the time of availing loan, the complainant had signed the loan application, promissory note, terms & conditions and loan terms sheet.  The complainant was habitual is not depositing the instalments regularly and the 8 cheques submitted by the complainant were dishonoured due to “Insufficient Funds”.  Hence, the Op filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant.  As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant was bound to pay the dishonour charges of cheques and bouncing charges.  As per account statement from 30.07.2009 to 13.10.2014, Annexure R-13, no excess amount was charged by the Op from the complainant.

                From perusal of documents Annexure R-5 to Annexure R-12, it is crystal clear that the 8 cheques submitted by the complainant were dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”.  We have perused the terms and conditions of Bajaj Finance, Annexure R-4.  The clause 18(a) of the same is reproduced below:-

        “18    Remedies in case of default

1.     In case of delay in payment of installment dues or default by reason of the cheques.  ECS Mandate/Any other Electronic or other clearing mandate being dishonoured.  BAFL shall charge Penal charges @ Rs.500/- per month/per default.”

                We have also perused the document Annexure R-13, which is account statement of complainant for the period from 30.07.2009 to 13.10.2014, wherein it is clearly shown that the Op company has rightly charged the cheque bouncing charges as-well-as overdue charges.  So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op has rightly charged the amount from the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove by any iota of evidence that the Op had charged excess amount from the complainant, so, they are not found deficient in service.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 23.10.2017.

                                                           (SATPAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER