Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/348/2015

Bajaj Auto Finance - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Toni, Sunil Toni & T.S.Gill, Adv.

25 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	348 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2016

 

1. Bajaj Auto Finance c/o Bajaj Auto Limited, Ground Floor, B/60-61, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110028, through Sh.Deepanjit Singh, Authorized Representative.
2. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, SCO 2, Phase-V, Mohali, through Sh.Deepanjit Singh, Authorized Representative.

 

……Appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Balbir Singh son of Sh. Puran Chand, resident of House No. 31, Type-III, Block-3, CRPF Camp, Hallo Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

....Respondent no.1/Complainant

2. Hind Motors Limited, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.3

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:          JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:        Sh.Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Sh.Pradeep Kumar, son of respondent no.1, on                              its behalf.

                        Service of respondent no.2, dispended with vide                             order dated 29.12.2015.     

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 05.11.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 (now appellants), as under:-

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed, to:-

 [a]  To refund Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, along with int. @9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of realization.

 [b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

 [c] To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation;

The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] from the date of deposit, till it is paid. Further, the compensation amount as per sub-para [b], shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/-. ”

2.       As per facts on record, the complainant/ respondent no.1, filed a consumer complaint against the appellants and respondent no.3, alleging that he had purchased a motorcycle, from respondent no.3 and got the same financed from the appellants. By making payment of monthly installments of Rs.2272/- the entire loan amount plus interest was cleared and ‘No Objection Certificate” was issued to him, in the month of June, 2014, by appellant no.2. Thereafter, appellant no.1 again demanded an amount of Rs.6,243/- from respondent no.1. He ignored the demand raised. However, again he received a notice from appellant no.1, with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/-, failing which, he was threatened that his motorcycle will be impounded. Under pressure, respondent no.1 deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with appellant no.2, on 27.11.2013. It is further stated that, thereafter, it transpired that the said amount of Rs.5,000/- was not deposited by appellant no.2, in the account of respondent no.1, rather, it was deposited in the account of some Balbir Singh, a resident of Hoshiarpur, Punjab. He claimed refund. When the grievance of respondent no.1 was not redressed, he was compelled to file a consumer complaint before the Forum.
3.       Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of appellant no.1, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the Forum, on 25.05.2015.
4.       Appellant no.2, in its written version, did not deny that respondent no.1 had cleared his loan account, by making monthly payment of Rs.2272/-, for the requisite period.  It was stated that once it was so, there was no necessity to ask him to make any further deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Rather, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by one Balbir Singh, a resident of Hoshiarpur, Punjab, who was defaulter qua another loan. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
5.       Respondent no.2/opposite party no.3 denied all the averments made, for want of knowledge and stated that no relief has been claimed against it by respondent no.1.
6.       Respondent no.1, appellant no.2 and respondent no.3, led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing respondent no.1, in person, Counsel for appellant no.2 and respondent no.2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order, while coming to the conclusion  that appellant no.2 wrongly got deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/-, received from respondent no.1, in some other account.
8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2.
9.       Service of respondent no.2, was dispended with, by this Commission, vide order dated 29.12.2015
10.       We have heard Counsel for the appellants, Sh.Pradeep Kumar son of respondent no.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
11.       It is on record that during pendency of the proceedings before the Forum, appellant no.1 was proceeded against exparte, as none put in appearance, on its behalf, despite service. Taking note of production of original receipt dated 27.11.2013 before the Forum, by respondent no.1/ complainant, qua deposit of Rs.5,000/-, the consumer complaint was allowed, by observing as under:-

“The Complainant has produced, before this Forum, the original receipt of deposited amount of Rs.5,000/- dated 27.11.2013, in his name. The Opposite Party No.2 has not endorsed the name of the father of the Complainant or the address of the Complainant on the said deposit receipt. There is also no denial on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 about the authenticity of the receipt of Rs.5,000/-; neither it has any explanation about the non-endorsement of father’s name/address of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to place on record any deposit form, duly signed by the Complainant or his representative, containing the alleged account number. The Opposite Party No.2 has accepted the fact of receipt of Rs.5,000/- from the Complainant, but has contended that it has deposited the said amount in the account of another Mr. Balbir Singh of Hoshiarpur, and has endorsed the account number of the said another Mr.Balbir Singh on the deposit receipt and has not accordingly accounted for in the account of the Complainant.”

12.       The view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified. Even at the time of arguments, before this Commission, Counsel for the appellants failed to explain, as to how, receipt in respect of deposit of an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 27.11.2013, came in the hands of respondent no.1. There is nothing on record, to show that the said amount was paid by some other Balbir Singh, a resident of Hoshiarpur. It is not case of the appellants that the said amount in-fact was paid by Balbir Singh, a resident of Hoshiarpur and respondent no.1 had got that receipt and had put up a false claim for refund thereof. The very fact that original receipt was produced by respondent no.1, before the Forum, makes it clear that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited by him, under threat of impounding of his vehicle. The Forum was also right in holding so. No ground, whatsoever has been made out, by the appellants, to reverse the findings of the Forum.
13.       No other point, was urged, by the parties concerned.
14.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
16.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

25.01.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg