Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/15/2018

Ranjit Sunani S/O- Sadhu Sunani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaji Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Bandana Mundra

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.15 OF 2018

Ranjit Sunani (32 Yrs.),

S/O- Sadhu Sunani, Occu: Self Employed,

RO: BTM Colony, PO: Industrial Estate,  

PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………….…….…………Complainant.

                                                 

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Finance Limited,

Registered Office At-Akurdi, Pune-411 035 (MH).

 

2. Regional Office,

Near Bajaj Finance Limited,

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation,

Opp. Lalpath Lab, Above Axis Bank,

Bhubaneswar………………...……….…....…….…..…….……..Opp. Parties

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                Bandana Mundra, Adv.

For the Opp. Parties                               N.K.Biswal, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 28.08.2018

Present

1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.

                                                                                 2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.

                                                                                3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

 

Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member : - This is the case of complainant against O.Ps as the O.Ps have repossessed the vehicle of complainant forcefully without any prior intimation and after appearance of O.Ps it came to knowledge that the seized vehicle has been sold out on auction sale and demanding excess amount from the complainant.

In brief, the facts of complainant’s case is that, the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Auto vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD-15D-1828 to earn his livelihood by driving himself which was financed by the O.Ps amounting Rs.1,54,900/- only excluding down payment of Rs.57,000/- only. The said financed amount had to repaid by the complainant with interest thereon in 42 Nos. of monthly installments amounting Rs.5,670/- only. The complainant had paid Rs.1,48,480/- only to the O.Ps till dtd.29.05.2017 and due to disablement of his son and poor health conditions of his parents and family members he put in financial hardship and could not paid some of the installments in time. The O.Ps without giving any prior notice to the complainant illegally and forcefully seized the vehicle on dt. 23.08.2017. The said vehicle was the only source of income of the complainant. On the the above mentioned attitudes of the O.Ps the complainant knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum seeking proper relief. 

The O.Ps. appeared after being noticed through their counsel jointly and filed written version. The O.Ps described the matter of loan taken by the complainant and submitted that the complainant has taken loan of Rs.2,38,140/- only including financial charges by executing a loan agreement. The complainant has violated the different terms of agreement. The O.Ps have issued pre and post seizure letter to the complainant. The complainant and the guarantor one Sudarshan Pal failed to close the loan as on dtd. 15.09.2017 and with consent the O.Ps. taken back the physical possession of vehicle on dt.07.09.2017 by given pre and post intimation to the I.I.C, Jharsuguda Police Station on the same day. At the time of taking peaceful possession of the vehicle, the complainant was in arrear of Rs.1,15,128/- only in total.  The O.Ps. issued letter to the complainant and Sudarshan Pal to remit outstanding dues of Rs.1,60,488/- only as on dt.15.09.2017 mentioning pre-sale notice.  After non-response from the complainant the O.Ps. sold the vehicle on as is where is basis for Rs.55,000/- only after adjustment the sale proceed with exist deficit of Rs. 1,05,488/- only to the said loan account.  Further the O.Ps. send demand notice on dtd. 30.10.2017 to the complainant for asking payment of Rs.1,05,488/- only and thereafter placed the matter to the sole Arbitrator on dt.06.03.2018 which is pre-judice and on the above mentioned grounds the O.Ps. prayed that the case may be dismissed.     

After hearing in length from both the sides and on perusal of case record with available documents it is found that, the complainant had taken loan from the O.Ps. by executing Auto Loan Agreement dtd. 29.10.2014 amounting Rs.1,54,900/- only plus interest/ finance charges of Rs.83,240/- only i.e. Rs.2,38,140/- only in total to purchase a three wheeler Bajaj Auto vehicle. The entire loan amount was to be refunded in 42 nos. of monthly installment of Rs.5,670/- only.  The O.Ps. issued several letters to the complainant demanding the dues of loan but failed to file any statement of Account having clarification of proper calculation of the said dues amounts.  For instance the O.Ps. demanded Rs.1,15,128/- only on dtd.07.09.2017 and subsequently demanded Rs.1,60,488/- only on dtd.15.09.2017. The O.Ps filed a copy of extract of Track Consignment of postal department showing a consignment bearing No. RM348923651IN has been delivered at Kalimandir Road Post Office on dtd. 13.11.2017 which was booked on 07.11.2017 but very interestingly there is no any documentary evidence against the complainant having the above mentioned  consignment or any letter issued to the complainant.  The O.Ps. also issued demand notice dtd. 15.09.2017 of Rs.1,60,488/- only as pre-sale intimation and also sent a letter dtd. 30.10.2017 of Rs.1,05,488/- only after deduction of selling price of vehicle of Rs.55,000/- only but failed to prove whether the complainant has received those letters. All the dues amounts mentioned in the letters are without any proper calculations. Though the O.Ps. served letters to the complainant but the consignment numbers of the articles are not proper through which it can be ascertained whether the particular letter has sent to the complainant and whether those consignments have been properly received by the complainant. More over the O.Ps. preferred for an Arbitration proceeding which is  pre-judice till date.

            The learned advocate for the complainant has filed several citations of judgments of Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi and Hon’ble Apex Court of India. Out of which a suitable judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India bearing 1996(II)OLR(SC)-502 between M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anothers Vrs. N.K.Modi in which it has held that,

 

“CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986- Secs, 2,3,12,13,14,18 Vis-à-vis Arbitration Act,1940-Sec-34-Different Forums under Consumer Protection Act are judicial authorities just like Civil Court- Object of the Consumer Protection Act stated-The remedy under this Act is an additional remedy-This Act intends to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome Arbitration Proceedings or civil action-Even if there is a stipulation for arbitration, party can take recourse to Consumer Protection Act and the authority need not refer under Sec.34 of Arbitration Act and can decide the dispute”.   

 

As the O.Ps. repossessed the vehicle of complainant and sold it out to some one else in the manner specified, but the activities of the O.Ps. are found to be unfair in nature and does not satisfied the proper service towards the complainant and also relying on above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the O.Ps. are found to be gross deficient in their service with committing of unfair trade practice on the part of complainant.

 

 Hence the present case of complainant is hereby allowed with following directions to the O.Ps.

 

ORDER

1. The O.Ps. are hereby directed jointly and severally to waive out the entire outstanding dues of complainant.
2. The O.Ps. are hereby further directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- ( Rupees eighty thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation, mental agony, harassment including litigation costs.
3. All the aforesaid orders are to be carried out within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps  shall be liable for interest @10% per annum on the above mentioned awarded amount till its realization.  

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 28^th day of August’ 2018.Free copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

           I Agree                                  I  Agree.                                                                                      

                                         

         A.Nanda, Member (W)          S. L. Behera, President             S.K.Ojha, Member            

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                                    S.K.Ojha, Member