Haryana

Ambala

CC/237/2014

RATANJIT SODHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SURJEET SINGH WALIA

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

      Complaint Case No. : 237 of 2014

     Date of Institution    : 02.09.2014

       Date of Decision       : 08.09.2017

 

Ratanjit Sodhi s/o Sh.Prem Chand age 50 years resident of village Boh, Near Guru Ravi Dass Mandir Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Finance Limited Vikas near Mohan Bakery, Ambala City.
2. SBJ Agencies, Dealer for Bajaj Auto Ltd, 126-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt.

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA,MEMBER.

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. S.S.Walia, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv. for the OPs.  

 

ORDER

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that on 15.08.2013 the complainant had purchased motor cycle Bajaj Platina 100 bearing Chassis No.MD2A18AZ2DRD26779 Engine No.DZZRDD26670. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- and took the possession of the motor cycle from OP No.2 as rest of the amount was financed by OP No.1 to be paid by the complainant for a period of 18 months as per agreement. The interest of loan was fixed @ 10 % per annum. On the next day the official of Op No.1 demanded Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for getting the insurance of the vehicle done which was paid by him and the installment for a sum of Rs.1725/- was fixed which was to be deducted from the account of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant kept on making the payment of installments till June, 2014 but in the month of July, 2014 he came to know  that Rs.2040/- were being deducted from his bank account from the first installment. The complainant contacted OP No.1 and enquired about the same but no satisfactory reply was given.  The official of Op No.1 admitted that out of Rs.15,000/- an amount of Rs.10,000/- was down payment of the loan and Rs.5,000/- were charged for insurance, file charges and other charges but by playing fraud the OP No.1 had further charged Rs.2,000/- from the complainant on this account. The complainant is still ready to deposit the rest of the installments but OP No.1 is not disclosing the loan amount after adjusting Rs.15,000/-. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that financial facility to the tune of Rs.36720/-  (including the financial charges of Rs.6420/-) was given to the complainant and regarding this a loan agreement No. L2WAMB02610323, duly signed by the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions made therein, was also executed.    The loan was to be repaid within 18 months and the EMI was fixed as Rs.2040/- from 08.10.2013 to 08.03.2015. The complainant has also issued Auto Debit Mandate for 18 months for prompt repayment of monthly installment i.e. on 08^th of every month but the complainant acted contrary to the same, therefore, Op No.1 recalled the said loan vide loan recall notice dated 07.09.2014. On 06.02.2015 arrears of Rs.16320/- alongwith Rs.6290 being other over-due charges, accumulated due to non-remittance of loan installments in time  and the said charges were accrued as per agreed clause 16 (a) of the loan agreement. No EMI of Rs.1725/- was agreed to be paid toward loan amount. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted.

3.                          OP No.2 in its separate reply has taken many preliminary objections such as locus standi, estoppal, concealment of material facts and the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer etc.  It has been further submitted that at the time of financing of vehicle the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- i.e. Down payment of Rs.11204/-, Rs.2000/- (refundable security if registration certificate prepared by the complainant himself and provided to OPs) Rs.150/- for temporary number, Rs.1048/- for insurance and Rs.300/- for Teflon coating  and Rs.300/- for wheel lock. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and the OPs have acted as per terms and conditions of the agreement.

4.                          Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully.

5.                          It is admitted fact that the complainant had obtained a loan from OP No.1 for purchasing of motor cycle Bajaj Platina from OP No.2 on 15.08.2013.  An amount of Rs.36720/- including the financial charges of Rs.6420/-.  The complainant has come with the plea that the EMI was of Rs.1725/- per month whereas the OP No.1 has come with the plea that the EMI was Rs.2040/- per month. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties the agreement executed between the parties which has been placed on case file as Annexure R1 & Annexure R2 (application cum agreement) are the best documents. Perusal of these document it is clear that the complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.36720  (Rs.30300 + Rs.6400 as financial charges) and in this document it has also been clearly mentioned that the amount of EMI would be Rs.2040 per month  with first installment date as 28.10.2013. These very documents have been duly signed by the complainant which shows that he had agreed with the terms and conditions of the same.

6.                          Another plea of the complainant that the OP No.1 has not adjusted Rs.15,000/-which was paid at the time of purchasing of the vehicle and out of that Rs.10,000/- as down payment and Rs.5,000/- were charged as file charges, insurance charges and other charges but the complainant has ceased to raise this plea because the above said amount was paid to the Op No.2 as admitted by him in para No.1 of the complaint and not to the Op No1.

7.                          Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the relief claimed by the complainant regarding EMI as well as the adjustment of amount which he has paid is not corroborated with any reliable evidence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed for as he has not been able to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) & 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act against the OPs, therefore, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 08.09.2017                                  (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

  (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        MEMBER

 

                                                                            

                                                                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                             MEMBER