West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/232/2015

Sri Pradip Sarkar, S/O Late Jogendra Kr. Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. Infinity Bench Mark. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _232_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : _18.5.2015__       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:   13/12/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Smt. Sharmi Basu  &   Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :     Pradip Sarkar, s/o late Jogendra Kr. Sarkar of 66D, Southend Garden, P.O Garia, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 700 084.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. Infinity Bench Mark, 12^th Floor, Plot no.-G1, EP & GP Block, Sector-V, Saltlake, Kolkata – 700 091.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Subrata Sarker, Member          

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 filed by the complainant on a ground that he purchased a  digital camera in the month of October, 2008 from Khosla Electronics pvt. Ltd. through Bajaj Finance Ltd. In terms of the contract between the complainant and the O.P Bajaj Finance Ltd. the loan amount of Rs.8536/- repayable by eight monthly installment  Rs.1067/- . The first installment started on 17.11.2008. Complainant filed the Bank statement showing all the installments have already been paid to the O.P in time. The complainant made several requests to the O.P to liquidate the loan amount but the O.P did not done it stating that one installment i.e. Rs.1067/- is due and the O.P was deliberately demanding the due payment of Rs.1067/-. For which when the complainant tried to enjoy any financial assistance from any other bank or any financial institution his proposal for availing loan was  turned down with the remarks as debtor to O.P of Rs.1067/-.

The O.p contested the case by filing written version wherein he stated that the complainant availed a loan from the O.P to purchase a digital camera and entered into a loan agreement with O.P vide loan agreement no.410322952 dated 22.10.2008 for a loan amount of Rs.12,800/- where the rate of interest is 0% and the monthly EMI fixed was Rs.1067/- . the complainant towards payment of loan installment dues issued Auto Debit/ECS Mandate. The installment no.4 which was due on 15.2.2009 for Rs.1067/- got dishonoured due to reason of insufficient fund against which the complainant made a payment in February, 2015. The O.P further stated that the complainant is supposed to pay 12 EMI’s and out of the said 12 EM Is 11 EMIs have been paid and 1 installment no.4 was bounced for insufficient funds inter alia and as a mater or goodwill gesture, overdue penal charges has been waived off on 28.2.2015. As per the statement of account, complainant’s account is showing NIL balance as on 28.2.2015. The computer generated NOC with official seal was handed over to the complainant, so the question of showing dues after 28.2.2015 does not arise.

Point for decision is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.

                                                            Decision with reasons

From the instalment delivery challan of Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. it is evident that the complainant purchased one Sony make Digital Camera the cost of which was Rs.12,800/- ,of which the complainant paid Rs.4268/- in cash and the due amount was Rs.7268/- for which the complainant submitted 8 post dated cheque amounting to Rs.1067/- each. But the O.P submitted in his evidence that the complainant entered into a loan agreement with the O.P vide loan agreement no.410322952 dated 22.10.2008 for a loan amount of Rs.12,800/- where the rate of interest is 0% and the monthly EMI fixed was Rs.1067/-. The O.P further stated that the complainant is supposed to pay 12 EMIs and out of the said 12 EMIs, 11 EMI have been paid and 1 installment i.e. installment no.4 was bounced for the reason insufficient fund. As there was discrepancies as follows:

1.   The complainant in his complaint petition stated that in terms of contract between him and the O.P the loan amount was mentioned as Rs.8536/- repayable in eight installments @Rs.1067/- each month.
2. In the written statement and BNA of O.P it is mentioned that the loan amount is Rs.12,800/- where the rate of interest is 0% .

It is evident from the installment delivery challan and Khosla Electronics pvt. Ltd. that the price of the Camera is Rs.12,800/- including tax of which Rs.4268/- was paid by the complainant in cash and the total amount due is Rs.7822/- and customer’s post date dated cheque are Rs.1067/- x 8. For the discrepancies the O.P was directed to file the Hire Purchase Finance Agreement no.41322952 dt. 22.10.2008 and both the O.P and the complainant was directed to clarify the anomalies of loan amount.

The O.P clarified that the loan amount financed is Rs.12,800/- , as per loan scheme cash down payment or advance EMI paid by the complainant is Rs.4,268/-, less processing charge Rs.710/- and the due amount is Rs.7822/-.

The complainant clarified that the total cot of the Camera is Rs.12,800/- down payment of Rs.4268/-was paid by cash and the balance amount of loan is Rs.7822/- .

Both the complainant and the O.P agreed that the loan amount was Rs.7822/-. But the complainant paid 8 post dated cheque of Rs.1067/- each. The total amount of which  comes to Rs.8536/- which is excess by Rs.714/- from Rs.7822/- the admitted loan amount. It is seen from the Pass Book of the complainant i.e. the W.B State Co-operative Bank Ltd. that the eight installment was paid on 17.11.2008, 13.12.2008, 15.1.2009, 17.2.2009, 17.3.2009, 17.4.2009, 15.5.2009 and 15.6.2009 @ Rs.1067/- each totaling to Rs.8536/-. So, the statement of O.P that the installment no.4 which was due on 15.2.2009 for Rs.1067/- got dishonoured due to the reason of insufficient fund does not stands, as it is evident from the pass book of the complainant that on 12.2.2009 the complainant had an amount of Rs.9170.54 in his credit and thereafter no transaction was made and the amount was cleared on 17.2.2009. So, the allegation of O.P is false that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient fund. Moreover, the O.P was asked to file the Hire Purchase Finance Agreement but it unable to submit the same stating that that as the loan was closed and as per company norms the agreement was destroyed ,hence, they are unable to produce the loan agreement no.410322951 dated 22.10.2008 . The O.P handed over the computer generated N.O.C with official seal to the complainant on 8.2.2016 i.e. after filing the complaint by the complainant on 18.5.2015, where the last installment of the loan amount was paid on 15.6.2009.

With that observation it is ,

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to take necessary action to issue a clearance certificate to the complainant so that he can enjoy any financial assistance from any other bank or any financial institution. The O.P shall have to bear the litigation cost of Rs.2000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.8000/- which have to be paid within  30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a till its realization.

O.P shall have to pay punitive damage of Rs.5000/- which will be deposited n the Consumer Legal Aid Fund and the payment has to be made within 30 days from this date.

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order through execution case after the stipulated period is over.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

Member                                   Member                                                                                   President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

            Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to take necessary action to issue a clearance certificate to the complainant so that he can enjoy any financial assistance from any other bank or any financial institution. The O.P shall have to bear the litigation cost of Rs.2000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.8000/- which have to be paid within 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a till its realization.

O.P shall have to pay punitive damage of Rs.5000/- which will be deposited n the Consumer Legal Aid Fund and the payment has to be made within 30 days from this date.

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order through execution case after the stipulated period is over.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

Member                                   Member                                                                                   President