DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.414 of 2015
Date of institution: 19.08.2015 Date of decision : 27.09.2016
Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Singh son of Lekhraj resident of House No.1401/4, Phase-XI, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited, c/o Bajaj Auto Ltd., SCO 2, 3rd Floor, Phase-V, Mohali through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited (Legal Department), c/o Bajaj Auto Premises, Old Material Gate, Yamunanagar, Akurdi, Old Pune-Mumbai Road, Pune, through its Deputy Manager (Legal).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 to 14
of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Rajshekhar, counsel for the complainant.
None for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant, Kuldeep Sharma @ Kuldeep Singh son of Lekhraj resident of House No.1401/4, Phase-XI, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant purchased on 03.01.2013 a Bajaj Three Wheeler from Bajaj Auto Ltd., Zirakpur Mohali which was got financed by him from OP No.1 who is sister concern of Bajaj Auto Ltd. The total sale consideration of the vehicle was Rs.1,29,900/- inclusive of VAT and surcharge. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as down payment and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was financed by OP No.1. The complainant was to pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.28,250/- towards financial charges, to be payable in 24 equated monthly installments of Rs.5,355/- commencing from 12.01.2013 to 20.01.2015. As demanded by the OP No.1, the complainant deposited signed blank cheques as guarantee. At the time of getting finance, the OP No.1 got signed hypothecation/loan-agreement from the complainant without explaining its contents to him. Copy of the agreement was also not given to the complainant inspite of requests of the complainant. Lastly the complainant vide his application dated 07.07.2015 sought copy of the agreement but till date OP No.1 has not given any response. The complainant had been paying the due installments regularly till 15.10.2013 for which cash receipt was issued by the authorised dealer of OP No.1. Thereafter, the amount of installments was collected directly by OP No.1 till 21.01.2015. After full and final payment of 24 installments, the complainant approached OP No.1 for termination of the hypothecation/loan agreement and for No Due Certificate to enable the complainant to apply for a new registration certificate. However, OP No.1 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.11,101/- remains to be cleared by the complainant and declined to terminate the agreement and issue NDC. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 25.02.2015 to OP No.1 and in response to this interim reply dated 09.03.2015 was issued by OP No.2 on behalf of OP No.1 asking the complainant to submit copies of receipts for verification, which the complainant sent on 16.03.2015. OP No.2 vide letter dated 30.03.2015 sought 30 working days time to look into the matter. However, vide letter dated 08.05.2015 OP No.2 admitted that the complainant had remitted all the loan EMI but an amount of Rs.5,355/- is due towards loan EMI and Rs.6,229/- towards other overdue charges. OP No.2 for causing further harassment to the complainant got arbitration proceedings initiated at Pune against the complainant claiming an amount of Rs.11,745/- till 11.06.2015 and the Arbitrator summoned the complainant for appearance on 12.08.2015. Thus, the OPs have caused lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to issue him duplicate copy of loan agreement; terminate the agreement and issue NDC in the name of the complainant; not to demand Rs.11,745/- from the complainant; to pay him Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; Rs.1.00 lacs as compensation for financial loss and Rs.35,000/- as litigation cost.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing written statement in which they had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that at the time of execution of loan agreement the complainant had gone through the terms and conditions and only then he signed the same. Copies of the all the loan documents and papers executed and signed by the complainant were handed over to him. As per Clause 34 of the agreement, the Ops referred the dispute before Sole Arbitrator on 11.06.2015 and complainant as asked to appear on 12.08.2015 by the Arbitrator. The complainant did not appear on12.08.2015 and was again summoned for 20.08.2015 and 15.10.2015. The matter in dispute is sub judice before the Arbitrator. On merits, the OPs have pleaded that as per the invoice submitted by the complainant, the price of the vehicle was Rs.1,50,400/- and not Rs.1,29,900/-. The complainant never paid Rs.30,000/- as down payment. The period of loan agreement expired on 20.01.2015 and on 12.10.2015 the complainant was in arrears of Rs.5,355/- towards installment arrears and Rs.7,034/- towards other overdue. These charges were levied as per Clause 14 (a) of the loan agreement. Until and unless the complainant clears the entire loan amount, NOC cannot be issued to the complainant. Thus, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of temporary registration certificate Ex.C-1; application dated 07.07.2015 Ex.C-2; 28 receipts Ex.C-3; account statement Ex.C-4; legal notice dated 25.02.2015 Ex.C-5; reply dated 09.03.2015 Ex.C-6; replication dated 16.03.2015 Ex.C-7; letter dated 30.03.2015, 05.05.2015 Ex.C-8 & C-9 and summons dated 12.06.2015 Ex.C-10. In rebuttal the OPs failed to tender any evidence despite seeking repeated adjournments and accordingly the evidence of the OPs was closed by order on 28.06.2016.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that inspite of receiving the payment of all the installments, the OPs have declined to issue duplicate copy of the loan agreement and No Due Certificate and in the absence of which the complainant is unable to get the vehicle transferred in his name. The learned counsel pleaded that the complainant had made few payments to the agent of the OPs namely Bright Motors as it is established from the receipts i.e. Ex.C-3 (colly). He further pleaded that the OPs cannot deny their vicarious liability. The learned counsel relied upon the case law, titled as Kamla Devi Sagu Vs. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 2014(2) CPC 353 of Hon’ble National Commission in which it was held that the OP cannot escape from vicarious liability because no information in this regard was given to the public at large or customer of the insurance company so that they could not be cheated by its agent. Thus, the acts of the OPs have caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant.
6. On the other hand the OPs have pleaded in the evidence that although the complainant has paid all the installments but as on 20.10.2015 the complainant was in arrears of Rs.5,355/- towards installment arrears and Rs.7,034/- towards other overdue which he failed to clear due to which the OPs had resorted to arbitration proceedings as per Clause-34 of the agreement.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written submissions of the parties. It is established from the deposit receipts i.e. Ex.C-3 (colly) issued by Bright Motors, collection agent of the OPs and the account statement i.e. Ex.C-4 that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount. If the agent of the OPs had committed fraud, the complainant cannot be held accountable for the same. In our opinion, it is the vicarious liability of the OPs. In reply to the notice i.e. Ex.C-9, the OPs have refused to consider the deposit receipts issued by the Bright Motors, who was an agent of the OPs.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law Kamla Devi Sagu Vs. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (supra) citied by the ld. Counsel for the complainant, we are of the opinion that the OPs have clearly indulged in unfair trade practice as the OPs are liable for the act and conduct of their agent. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that arbitration proceedings are started against the complainant at Pune, the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has recently held in Misc. Application No.3239 of 2015 in CC No.219 of 2015 titled as Pavitpal Singh vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, decided on 25.04.2016 that the consumer has the alternative remedy available under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which clearly states that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
9. Hence we direct the OPs to issue to the complainant duplicate copy/photostat copy of the loan agreement No.L3WOH02195712; to terminate the loan agreement and issue NDC to the complainant and not to raise illegal demand of Rs.11,745/- from the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony and harassment alongwith costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 27.09.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
