STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
First appeal No.267 of 2015
Date of the Institution: 20.03.2015
Date of Decision: 07.04.2015
Vikram Singh S/o Late Sh.Varinder Singh R/o H.No.2514, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. Partap Auto (India) Private Limited through its Branch Manager,S.C.O. No. 356, Sector 9 Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Bajaj finance Limited through its Branch Manager, Office at SCO No.356, Sector-9 Panchkula, Haryana.
3. Partap Auto (India) Private Limited, through its Manager, SCO 84-85, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
.….Respondents
CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:- Mr.Vikram Singh appellant in person.
O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased motor cycle make bajaj pulsar 150 from O.P.No.1-respondent No.1 manufactured by O.P.No.4-respondent No.4 after availing the loan facility from O.P.No.2-respondent No.2. As per duplicate invoice issued by O.P.No.1 the price of motor cycle was Rs.67,717/- for Taflon coating (TC) and accessories (ACC) he made payment in cash. O.P.No.2 sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.48,000/-. He deposited Rs.1000/- with O.P.No.1 on 13.10.2012 as booking amount and Rs.21,925/- as down payment on 16.10.2012. In this way he made down payment of Rs.22,925/-. In this way he was liable to pay Rs.44,792/-, whereas O.P.No.2 gave loan of Rs.48000/- and charged Rs.3206/- extra from him. O.P.Nos.1 and 2 are sister concerns. The O.Ps. be directed to return double of that amount alongwith interest, compensation for harassment, mental agony etc.
2. O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that nothing extra was charged. It was alleged by O.P.No.2 that after deducting down payment, Rs.46095/- were disbursed to O.P.No.1, and nothing extra was charged.
3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.03.2015.
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Appellant argued that from the perusal of para Nos.4 and 5 of the reply filed by O.P.No.2 it is clear that processing charges of Rs.1905/- and margin money of Rs.21020/- were paid in cash by him. He was only liable to pay Rs.44792/- whereas O.P.No.2 disbursed the loan of Rs.48,000/-. In this way Rs.3206/- were charged in excess. The learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.
7. This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of invoice Annexure A the price of the motor-cycle was Rs.67719.99 paise, the price of accessories and TC was Rs.1300/- total amounting to Rs.69019.99. This payment was to be made to O.P.No.1. Out of this amount complainant paid Rs.22925/-, comprising Rs.1905/- as of processing charges and Rs.21020/- as margin money. After deducting this amount, the complainant was to pay Rs.46094.99 paise. As per Annexure D, with the paper book, O.P.No.2 has disbursed Rs.46095/- only. How he is alleging that Rs.3206/- are being charged extra from him. In Annexure-D all the details are clearly shown. He signed the agreement and other documents after admitting them to be correct. He is an Advocate and cannot be presumed that he was unaware of these facts.
8. The learned District Forum has taken into consideration all these aspects. There is no illegality in impugned order dated 02.03.2015. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
April 7th, 2015 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K.Bishnoi, Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl.Bench
S.K.
