Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/36/2018

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rahul Kang

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/36/2018

  Instituted on:    06.02.2018

                                                             Decided on:     02.11.2023

 

Satish Kumar aged about 34 years, son of Shri Shankar Dass, resident of House No.210, Street No.4, Darshan Singh Nagar, Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Garg Sales situated at Jourian Bhattian, Patiala through its Proprietor/Partners.

2. Bajaj Finance Limited, situated at 21 No. Phatak, Near Traffic Lights through its Branch Manager/Proprietor/Partners.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri Rahul Kamboj, Adv.              

For OP 1                   : Shri Umesh Kumar Ghai, Adv.

For OP No.2              : Shri Gaurav Singla, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             :    MEMBER

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER.            

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that he purchased one SAM LED and SAM Bluetooth Headest for an amount of Rs.60,000/- from OP number 1 vide invoice number 719 dated 28.09.2017. It is further averred that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash to OP number 1 and the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- was financed from OP number 2 through OP number 1.  It is further averred that the complainant has been paying the instalments to the OP number 2 as per terms and conditions of the OP. The complainant also paid two instalments of Rs.2334/- each to OP number 2 on 5.12.2017 and 2.1.2018, respectively. The grievance of the complainant is that OP number 1 has filed a false application before the police station Kotwali Patiala and told the complainant to deposit the remaining instalments of the said loan account, which is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to adjust the remaining instalments of the LED and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the LED in question from OP number 1, however, it is denied that the same was got financed from OP number 2 through OP umber 1. It is denied that the complainant ever paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash to OP number 1. It is stated that the cost of LED was Rs.60,000/- but OP number 2 only approved loan amount of Rs.35,000/- and balance amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to OP number 1 which was never paid to the complainant. OP number 1 also filed an application before the police authorities for recovery of the amount, but all in vain.  Lastly, OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the LED in question for Rs.60,000/- and also availed the loan facility of Rs.35,000/- from OP number 2 and the same was repayable in 15 equal instalments of Rs.2334/- each. It is stated that the complainant is a defaulter towards the payment of the monthly instalments due to the reason of ‘insufficient funds’ and as on date an amount of Rs.4558/- stands due besides the penal charges and same is evident from the statement of account.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-A affidavit and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and closed evidence. Similarly, OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-A affidavit of Vipan Garg and Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP/B affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg and closed evidence. 

6.             A bare perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has purchased the LED  in question vide bill Ex.C-2 on 28.9.2017 for Rs.60,000/-. The relief claimed in this case is that the complainant got the loan of Rs.35,000/- from the OP number 2 against the said LED and the complainant has contended that the remaining instalments of loan be adjusted. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any record showing the deposit of the whole financed amount with OP number 2.  Since in the present case either of the parties have not produced sufficient evidence to reach at a conclusion about the dues of any of the parties, as such we are unable to pass any order in favour of the complainant. Though the complainant has approached this Commission for a relief to adjust the remaining instalments of loan, but we may again mention that the complainant has not produced iota of evidence to support the contention in the case for adjusting the instalments. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the case .

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

                                November 2, 2023.