Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1112/2011

Sukhbir S/o Gulzar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.P.Choudhary

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1112  of  2011.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 02.11.2011.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 06.05.2016.

Sukhbir aged about 38 years son of Shri Gulzar, resident of village and P.O. Kanhri Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The Manager, Bajaj Finance, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, SCO 136, Sector-17, HUDA Main G.T.Road, Jagadhri 135003.
2. The Divisinal Manager, Bajaj Finance C/o Bajaj Auto Limited, 11 Floor, 60-61, Naraina Indl. Area, Phase II, New Delhi 110028, Phone (011) 51417931.

   

 

                                                                                                                      … Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.   

              Sh. Rohit Arya, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sukhbir  filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to return the blank cheques taken by the OPs as security and to withdraw the penalty amount of Rs. 15000/- and to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one motorcycle from M/s Malik Automobiles Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and the same was got financed from OPs for a sum of Rs. 16360/-. The loan amount was payable by the complainant to the OPs in 10 equal monthly installments of Rs. 1636/- each which was payable from January 2008. The OPs had obtained from the complainant 10 blank cheques as security for the loan amount. The complainant remained deposited the amount of installments in PNB Chhappar under his account bearing No. 2309252 and the payment was to be made against each cheque. After some time OP No.1 told to the complainant that 10 cheques have been lost in their office and suggested the complainant to make the payment of installments in cash against receipts. In this way, the complainant had paid to the OPs 9 installments regularly in cash against receipt only and one installments remained to be paid to the OPs by the complainant. When the complainant reached the OP No.1 for making the payment of last installment, the OP No.1 told that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is still outstanding against the complainant. The OP No.1 presented four cheques dated 07.01.2009, 08.01.2009, 24.01.2009 and 28.01.2009 for encashment in the bank but the same were dishonoured. The OP No.1 had no necessity for presenting the four cheques in the bank when the OPs had received 9 installments of Rs. 1636/- each in cash from the complainant and the complainant was ready to pay the last installments. Due to the above act and conduct on the part of OPs, the complainant has suffered great mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by admitting that complainant approached the OPs and requested for financial facility for purchase of two wheeler motorcycle (Bajaj Platina). The parties agreed to extend facility to the tune of Rs. 16360/- with 0% interest facility for 10 months and executed a loan agreement bearing No. 511020823 on dated 15.01.2008. The monthly installments to be paid as per loan agreement was Rs. 1636/- w.e.f. 10.02.2008 to 10.11.2008. It has been further mentioned that complainant has not handed over 10 blank cheques as alleged by the complainant to the OPs, the said cheques were duly filled up and signed by the complainant before the same was handed over to the Ops for presentation. The Ops never informed the complainant that 10 cheques have been lost from the office rather all the cheques have been duly presented but due to technical error some cheques were not hit in the account of the complainant and thus the OPs has not received the credit against these cheques. Later on this fact was communicated by the OPs to the complainant and the complainant has paid cash payment against 9 installments to the OPs. Thus as on date this complaint, the complainant is in arrear of Rs. 1952/- towards EMI arrears. The OPs never demanded an amount of Rs. 15000/- from the complainant as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. As the complainant has not paid amount of Rs. 1952/- till date on account of EMI to the OPs, hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs rather there is default on the part of complainant himself. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with the direction to the complainant to make the payment of Rs. 1952/-.

4.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant and documents such as photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postal receipts as annexure C-2, Photo copy of pass book as Annexure C-3, Copy of legal notice issued by Ops to the complainant as Annexure C-4 & C-5, Photo copy of receipts Mark A to I and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of the OPs was closed on 06.01.2016 by court order

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the Ops and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     After hearing the counsel for the OPs and going through the contents of the complaint as well as documents, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the complainant has totally failed to prove that the OPs have demanded illegal amount of Rs. 15000/- from him. From the perusal of the written statement in which the Ops has clearly mentioned that only Rs. 1952/- was due against the complainant on account of EMI at the time of filing of complaint and to recover the same the OPs had issued a legal notice as Annexure C-4 & 5 to the complainant but despite that complainant failed to make the said payment to the OPs. Further, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 02.11.2011 whereas he availed the facility of loan in the month of December 2007 which was lastly paid till 10.11.2008 w.e.f. 10.02.2008. Meaning thereby that, the present complaint has been filed after a period of 2 years which is hopelessly time barred as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                     In the circumstances noted above, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 06.05.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER