Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/262/2019

Radhe Shyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.S Marothia

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.262 of 2019                                                       Date of institution:10.07.2019.                                                          Date of decision: 14.12.2023.

Radheyshyam son of Jagdish resident of Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Finance Limited, Bajaj Auto Financial Limited, B-60/61, Phase-2 Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi 110022.
2. Fatehabad Bajaj Automobiles, Bajaj Finance Limited, Bajaj Auto Financial Limited Sirsa Road, Fatehabad.

                                                                    ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act                       

CORAM:         SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                                                    DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                                                           SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER      

Present:          Sh.Azad Singh Marothia, Advocate, for the complainant.                                      Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                               OP No.2 exparte VOD 14.08.2019.                 

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission on the ground that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR22-N-1744 financed through Op No.1vide AGMT No.L2WFTH046000954; that  the complainant has paid all the installments because the last installment of Rs.3140/- on 30.10.2018 was paid vide receipt No.20760 on 30.10.2018; that the complainant applied for NOC/clearance certificate but the Ops did not pay any heed; that the also got served legal notice upon the Ops but they refused to do so and gave the reply to the notice on false and flimsy grounds. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

2.                           On notice, Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that financial facility to the tune of Rs.65790/- (finance amount of Rs.47750/- + financial charges Rs.18040/-) was provided to the complainant vide mutual understanding and loan agreement No. L2WFTH046000954; that the complainant had to pay 30 monthly installments for a sum of Rs.2193/- each from 05.11.2016 to 05.04.2019 but the complainant had only paid 24 installments till 30.10.2018; that the loan tenure was for 30 months and the complainant himself has executed had opted for the repayment mode; that in order to recover the loan amount, the replying OP had recalled entire loan vide loan recall notice dated 29.05.2019 and informed the complainant to remit net outstanding amount of Rs.17161/- but the complainant did not adhere to the request of the replying Op; that the complainant did not repay the loan amount even after the expiry of the loan tenure on 05.04.2019; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. OP No.2 did not appear before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.08.2019.

3.                          Complainant and appeared OP No.1 led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4.                          Both the parties have been heard and case file has been perused carefully.

5.                          During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that the complainant has paid 24 installments out of 30 installments and he is ready to make the payment of rest of 6 installments and further prayed for giving some time to the complainant for making the payment of the rest of the installments.

6.                          Since the complainant himself is ready to make the payment of rest of 6 installments of the loan in question, therefore, it is needless to say that the complainant himself was at fault in not complying with the contract qua repayment of the loan amount, on his part which makes him disentitled for the relief as prayed for by way of the present complaint. Undisputedly, a contract was executed between the Op No.1 and complainant qua repayment of the amount, therefore,   this Commission refrains itself for adding and altering any word in the same.

7.                          Keeping in view the above discussion we dispose-off the present complaint being infructuous. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                                 Dated: 14.12.2023

                            

                                                                  

      (K.S.Nirania)                        (Harisha Mehta)                             (Rajbir Singh)                                  Member                                Member                                               President