Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/56/2014

A.John Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 28.01.2014

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 17.09.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 14.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,         :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 56/2014

FRIDAY, THE 14^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

A.John Mathew,

S/o. Antony Swamy,

New No. 39/5, Old No.15/5,

Vanniyampathy Street,

R.A.Puram, Mandaveli,

Chennai - 600 028.                                                       ... Complainant                 

 

..Vs..

1.The Managing Director,

   Bajaj Auto Finance,

   Bajaj Finance Limited,

   Old Mumbai - Pune Highway,

   Akurdi,

   Pune 411 035.

 

2.The Manager,

   Bajaj Finance Ltd,

   No. 2.A., Bharathi Business Centre,

   Dr. Banumathi Ramakrishnan Road,

   Saligramam,

   Chennai - 600 093.                                               ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. A. Suresh Sakthi Murugan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. S.Parthasarathy

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to repay the purchase amount of Rs.22,414/- paid by the Complainant to the Sri Jai Autos Pvt Ltd and repay a sum of Rs.40,614/- paid by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party and to pay a sum of Rs.4723/- as Life time tax paid to the Registering Authority, the amount of Rs.1060/- paid as premium for the insurance with interest @18% and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and stress caused to the Complainant.     

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant bought a Two Wheeler Bajaj Pulsar-150 Bike , Asset Model PULSAR 150 DTSI UG3 ES bearing Registration No.TN05Z9888 having Engine No.DHGBRK67450 and Chassis No.MD2DHDHZZRCK 68848 from Sri Jay Bajaj Autos Private Limited at Chennai.  He paid Rs.22,414/- on 16.02.2009 towards the purchase and for the balance amount he got a loan from the 2^nd Opposite Party for Rs.46,000/- under Loan No.L2WCHE00048183, agreeing to pay back the loan by monthly instalments of Rs.2,901/- in 18 months and the total amount to be paid for the aforesaid loan is Rs.52,218/-.  The said vehicle is insured for the period from 17.07.2010 to 16.07.2011 to National Insurance Company Limited by Policy No.501701/31/10/6200002283. The Complainant was paying instalments regularly. On 04.10.2010 the Opposite Party received a sum of Rs.9000/- and as on 04.10.2010, 14 months instalments were paid and only 4 months instalments were to be paid. On 05.10.2010 he found that his bike was missing. He immediately contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party who told that they did not seize the vehicle and had issued Non Repossession Certificate dated 06.10.2010. Based on the complaint and on the said Non Repossession Certificate the Police registered FIR in Crime No.734 of 2010 dated 31.10.2010 under Section 379 of IPC. In the last week of October 2012, one Mr.Sarath introduced himself as a Sales Agent of Bafna Auto asked the Complainant to handover the original RC Book of the stolen Pulsar Bike. When the Complainant visited his office he came to know that the aforesaid bike was seized by the 2^nd Opposite Party and it was sold to Bafna Auto for Rs.25,050/-, on 01.02.2011. Moreover the Complainant also got the certificate for cancellation of Hypothecation dated 28.02.2011 issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai. It is totally unfair practice done by the 2^nd Opposite Party, who took the bike on 05.10.2010 without the knowledge of the Complainant, after he paid Rs.9000/- as arrears EMI on the previous date that is 04.10.2010. The Complainant issued lawyer’s notice on 03.12.2012 and 03.01.2013, which was replied by the 1^st Opposite Party on 22.01.2013 stating that we are looking in to the matter but thereafter there was no communication from the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        The complaint is barred by Sec 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Financial Assistance was extended to the Complainant from 15.04.2009 to 15.09.2010 and last payment was made by the Complainant to the said loan account was on 04.10.2010 for Rs.9000/- and hence the complaint is barred by limitation.  The Complainant approached the Opposite Party for financial assistance for purchase of a Bajaj Motor Cycle (Pulsar 150) and the Opposite Parties extended the financial facilities for the tune to Rs.52,218/-, wherein the Complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount in 18 EMI of Rs.2,901/-. The said vehicle was secured to the loan and is hypothecated to Opposite Parties. The Complainant had committed default in payment of loan amount which is an admitted fact by the Complainant. Even on maturity of the loan on 15.09.2010, the Complainant was in due of Rs.11298/- along with other over due charges of Rs.8000/-. The Complainant in order to avoid legal action approached the Opposite Party on 04.10.2010 and agreed to remit Rs.9000/- towards part payment and requested not to take any legal action, sought for 10 working days for closure of loan account or in turn shall surrender the vehicle as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The Opposite Parties denied the issuance of the alleged letter dated 06.10.2010. On 29.10.2010 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to take back possession of the vehicle and on the said request the vehicle was taken back by the Opposite Parties, at the time of handing over of the said vehicle the Complainant assured that he will approach back with the buyer to fetch good marketable price but failed to do so and as consented vide letter dated 29.10.2010 the vehicle was sold to an intending purchaser for Rs.25050/- on 01.02.2011. there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties no document was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

        The Complainant had purchased a Two Wheeler Bajaj Pulsar 15 Bike bearing Registration No.TN05Z9888, by availing loan for a sum of Rs.52,218/- , which is to be repaid in equated monthly installemnt of Rs.2901/- for a period of 18 months and the last payment was made by the Complainant on 04.10.2010 for Rs.9000/- which facts are not disputed. On 05.10.2010 when the Complainant parked his two wheeler in front of his earlier residence at Kodungaiyur, Chennai he found his bike missing. When he contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party informed that they did not seize the vehicle. Hence the Complainant approached the P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station at Chennai, who based on the Non Repossession Certificate dated 06.10.2010, Ex.A-6 issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party had registered a First Information Report on 31.10.2010 Ex.A-7 in Crime No.734/2010. While so the Complainant came to know that his bike was seized by the 2^nd Opposite Party on the day it went missing and sold to the Bafna Auto for Rs.25,050/-.

        The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant is a defaulter and cannot maintain the complaint alleging deficiency of service. Even on the date of maturity the Complainant was in due of Rs.11298/- along with Rs.8000/- towards overdue charges as on 15.09.2010. Further the Opposite Parties contended that on 28.10.2010 the Complainant had issued a surrender letter, based on which the vehicle was sold to an intending purchaser for Rs.25,050/- on 01.02.2011.

        Though the Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is a defaulter, the Opposite Parties had received a sum of Rs.9000/- on 04.10.2010 towards arrears of EMI. However the very next day on 05.10.2010 the vehicle went missing which is actually repossessed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant would not have expected that the Opposite Parties would have seized the vehicle after he has remitted Rs.9000/- the previous day from Ex.A-6. It is found that the Opposite Parties had issued Non Repossession Certificate and on the basis of which a FIR came to be registered by the Police on 31.10.2010 in Crime No.734/2010 under Section 379 IPC. Inspite of the Non repossession certificate issued by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties had seized the vehicle from the Complainant and later in the written version has stated that the Complainant had given a surrender letter dated 29.10.2010 and the subject vehicle was sold for Rs.25,050/- on 01.02.2011. For the legal notices sent by the Complainant on 03.11.2012 and 03.01.2013, the Opposite Parties had not given any reply about the sale of the vehicle. The interim reply given by the 1^st Opposite Party on 22.01.2013 also did not reveal about the seizure or sale of the vehicle.

        The act of the Opposite Parties in seizing the vehicle without prior notice to the Complainant and issuing Non Repossession Certificate on 06.10.2010, when the fact remains that the vehicle went missing on 05.10.2010, which is actually repossessed by the Opposite Parties, as the repossession came to light when some third party had contacted the Complainant to handover the Registered RC Book alleging that the Complainant had issued a surrender letter on 29.10.2010 and hence the vehicle was sold, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point no.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service causing mental agony to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 14^th of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	16.02.2009	Copy of cash receipt for purchase of the bike
Ex.A2	16.02.2009	Copy of cash receipt for purchase of the bike
Ex.A3	19.02.2009	Copy of Delivery Challan of the bike
Ex.A4	-	Copy of R.C Book of the bike
Ex.A5	17.07.2010	Copy of Certificate of Insurance
Ex.A6	06.10.2010	Copy of Non-Repossession Certificate
Ex.A7	31.10.2010	F.I.R registered by the Police regarding missing of the bike
Ex.A8	Feb,2011	Copy of Receipt issued by the 2nd  Opposite Party for the sale of the Complainant’s bike
Ex.A9	28.02.2011	Copy for Cancellation of Hypothecation issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A10	03.12.2012	Copy of legal notice sent by the Complainant
Ex.A11	03.01.2013	Copy of legal notice sent by the Complainant
Ex.A12	22.01.2013	Copy of Interim reply to the legal  notice sent by the 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                    PRESIDENT