Haryana

Panchkula

cc/145/2014

VIKRAM SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARTAP AUTO. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                 

Consumer Complaint No	:	145 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2014
Date of Decision	:	02.03.2015

                                                                                                                 

Vikram Singh S/o Late Sh.Varinder Singh, R/o House No.2514, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Partap Auto (India) Private Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO 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 No.84-85, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
4. Bajaj Auto Limited, SCO No. 84-85, Second Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                                    Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                  Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Complainant in person. 

Mr.Dheera Kumar, authorized representative for the Ops No.1 & 3.

                                    Mr.Jatin Sherawat, Adv., for the Op No.2.

                                    Op No.4 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant has purchased Bajaj Pulsar-150 motorcycle from the Op No.1 which was registered vide registration No.HR03P-6784 and financed from OP No.2 vide loan account No.L2WPNC01987804. At the time of purchase, the price of the motorcycle was Rs.67,717/- vide a duplicate invoice dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure C-1) issued by OP No.1 and the invoice, the TC stands for Teflon Coating and ACC stands for Accessories of the motorcycle for these the complainant made the payment in cash. The complainant has some doubts on the finance of the motorcycle that there was some financial irregularity committed by the agency and the bank so the complainant visited the Op No.1 for collecting the particulars of motorcycle but they were reluctant to provide the information to the complainant. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure C-2) to the Ops and requested the Bajaj Finance Limited to provide the details of loan amount and outstanding amount which was provided by it to him and as per that details, the loan amount financed by Op No.2 was Rs.48,000/-. After issuing the legal notice, the Op No.1 provided the detail of the cash payment made by the complainant at the time of purchase of motorcycle and as per detail, the complainant paid Rs.1000/- (Annexure C-4) on 13.10.2012 as booking amount and Rs.21,925/- (Annexure C-5) as down payment on 16.10.2012 so the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.22,925/-. The complainant visited the office of Ops No.1 and 2 and there he met with customer care manager who failed to solve the queries of the complainant regarding overcharging and asked the complainant to come again on some other date. The Op No.2 was the sister concern of Op No.4 and they were benefitted in two way i.e. the excess amount of Rs.3206/- which was received by Op No.1 and secondly the complainant paid the amount to Op No.2 with interest. This act of the Ops amount to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant purchased Bajaj Pulsar 150 motorcycle from Op No.1 vide invoice dated 16.10.2012 amounting to Rs.67,717.99 and accessories for Rs.1,300/- i.e. total amount of Rs.69,020/-. It is submitted that the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- vide receipt dated 13.10.2012 and Rs.21,925/- dated 16.10.2012. It is submitted that the Op No.2 paid Rs.46,095/-, the balance amount against total consideration of amount Rs.69,020/- and no other payment was received by Ops No.1 and 3 from the complainant and nothing was due. It is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned any trouble with the motorcycle. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Op No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.2 did not have any branch at Bajaj Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.356, Sector-9, Panchkula and the registered office of Op No.2 was situated at Bajaj Finance Ltd., C/o Bajaj Auto Ltd., Materials Gate, Old Service Building, Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-4119035 and having one of its regional office at Bajaj Finance Ltd., B 60-61, Nariana Industrial, Phase-2, Delhi-110028. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the loan vehicle from Op No.1 vide retail invoice dated 16.10.2012. It is submitted that the loan vehicle was registered as HR-03-6784 and the details were furnished by the complainant to Op No.2 for loan records. It is submitted that ex. showroom price of the loan vehicle was Rs.67,717/- but it was Rs.67,717.99 and the retail invoice dated 16.10.2012 was issued by Op No.1 for Rs.69019.99 which included price for accessories and Teflon coating of Rs.1300/-. It is submitted that OP No.2 has not received any legal notice dated 23.07.2014. It is submitted that the complainant visited the Op No.1 for purchase of motorcycle and agreed to purchase one Pulsar 150-UG- 4-5. It is submitted that the complainant requested for finance assistance and the Op No.1 referred the complainant to Op No.2 authorized sales executive. It is submitted that after considering the documents of the complainant, the Op No.2 agreed to extend financial assistance of Rs.48,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant, on agreeing to the entire loan scheme , signed and executed a loan agreement cum schedule in favour of Op No.2 and Op No.2 extended financial assistance for an amount of Rs.69,148/-. The loan was extended for 36 months with an EMI of Rs.1893/-. It is submitted that as per the loan agreed terms and conditions, the complainant was supposed to remit loan processing charges of Rs.1905/-. It is submitted that as per the direction of complainant, the OP No.2 remitted the loan amount to Op No.1 vide receipt No.PKL02031213 & PKL02031199 Dated 16.10.2014. It is submitted that after deducting Rs.1905/- from Rs.48,000/-, the Op No.2 has given the amount to Op No.1 and the Op No.2 has given the credit of Rs.46,095/- to the Op No.1. It is denied that the complainant has not given the sanction letter and copy of loan agreement. It is submitted that on the date of execution of the loan agreement, a copy was supplied to the complainant which was very well acknowledged by the complainant. It is denied that the Op No.2 collected any excess amount from the complainant. It is denied that the Op No.1 and Op No.2 were sister concern. The Op No.1 is a vehicle dealer who sold motor cycle manufactured by Bajaj Auto Limited i.e. Op No.4 and OP No.2 was a finance of Bajaj Finance Limted. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is in the business of finance registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 & is registered Non-Banking Financing Company and OP No.4 is a motorcycle manufacturer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice was issued to OP No.4 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.4. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.11.2014.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 3 has made a separate statement in which he states that he did not want to file any evidence and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant appeared in person and learned counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 and appraised the material on record carefully and have also considered the written arguments placed on file by the complainant.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar-150 from the OP No.1 manufactured by Op No.4 on 16.10.2012. The price of the motorcycle was Rs.67,719.99. The cost of TC (Teflon Coating) and ACC (Accessories) was Rs.1300/- (complainant attached the duplicate invoice Annexure C-1). The motorcycle was financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd.-Op No.2. The complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- on 13.10.2012 (Annexure C-4) as booking amount and Rs.21,925/- on 16.10.2012 (Annexure C-5). The complainant paid total cost of Rs.22,925/-.
8. It has been urged by the complainant that as per payment detailed the total price of motorcycle was Rs.67,719.99 (Annexure C-1) including price of Rs.1300/- on Teflon coating and accessories which comes to Rs.69,020/-. The total down payment made by the complainant at the time of purchase was Rs.1,000/- on 13.10.2013 (Annexure C-4) and Rs.21,925/- on 16.10.2012 (Annexure C-5). Thus, the total down payment made by the complainant was Rs.22,925/-. The total loan given by the Op No.2 was Rs.48,000/- whereas the loan ought to be (Rs.69020/- - Rs.22,925/-) Rs.46,095/- whereas the loan actual given by the OP No.2 was Rs.48,000/- mentioning thereby an excess of Rs.1905/- was given to the complainant. He further argued that as per loan agreement’s terms and conditions (Annexure R2/2) supposed to remit loan processing charges of Rs.1905/- apart from the sanctioned finance assistance of Rs.48,000/- whereas the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.22,925/- on 13.10.2012 and 16.10.2012 which include the loan processing charges and the same was agreed by the complainant through Annexure D of Annexure R2/2. He further argued that the Op No.2 after deducting Rs.1905/- from Rs.48,000/- to be given to the Op No.1 and the Op No.2 had given the credit of Rs.46,095/- to the Op No.1 (Rs.48,000/- - Rs.1900/- = Rs.46,095/-) and the Op No.1 got total sale consideration of Rs.69,020/-. He further argued that once the Op No.2 took Rs.1905/- at the time of initial down payment and adjust it from the payment made by the complainant and secondly they deducted amount of Rs.22,925/- i.e. Rs.21,020/- (margin money) + Rs.1905/- (loan processing charges) and thereafter they again deducted the same money while giving the loan of Rs.46,095/- to the Op No.1 which is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the Ops charged double amount of process charges from the complainant.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 has admitted that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from the Op No.1 vide retail invoice dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure R2/1). The vehicle was financed by the Op No.2 and the ex-showroom price of the motorcycle was Rs.67,717.99. The Op No.1 also charged Rs.1300/- as Teflon coating and accessories charges. The complainant visited the Op No.2 for finance assistance to the Op No.2. The Op No.2 agreed to extend financial assistance of Rs.48,000/- and application for loan duly signed by the complainant was submitted. The complainant executed a loan agreement-cum-schedule (numbered as L2WPNC01987804) IN FAVOUR OF THE Op No.2. The loan agreement-cum-schedule has been annexed as Annexure R2/2 alongwith schedule forming part of the Auto Loan Agreement (Annexure R2/3), authority given by the complainant to debit his account for making payment to Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Annexure R2/4), application-cum-agreement (Annexure R2/4), disbursement memo (Annexure R2/5). The loan was extended for 36 months with an EMI of Rs.1893/-. He further submitted that as per the loan agreed terms and conditions, the complainant was supposed to remit loan processing charges of Rs.1905/-. As per direction of the complainant, the Op No.2 remitted the loan amount of Rs.46,095/- to the Op No.1 vide receipt No.PKL02031213 & PKL02031199 dated 16.10.2014 after deducting Rs.1905/- from Rs.48,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. We have our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. We have to record the finding on the basis of all the documents and the copy of loan agreement form (Annexure R2/2).
11. The first material document produced by the Op No.2-Bajaj Finance Ltd., terms and conditions between Bajaj Auto and complainant alongwith its annexed. From the perusal of the Annexure D (Annexure R2/4) shows the finance details as under:-

“3.Finance Details

                          Model-Pulsar150CC             ORP-69020      DMA Name-Jaswinder Singh    DMA Code-7118

                          Scheme Code-13189                                 Rate of Interest-13.99%          FirstEMIdate-12.12.12

                          Amount Financed-48000                         Advance EMI(Nos)-NA                 Tenure-36Months

                          EMI-1893                                                    Upfront Interest                 Advance EMI(Amount)-NA

                          Service Charges-100                          (Incd.Othercharges)-125+1680     InitialPayment-21020

                                                                                                                                               Net disbursement-46095”

                        The abovesaid document was signed by the complainant which is a part of the document of the terms and conditions of the loan. From the above, it is clear that the OP No.2 financed the amount of Rs.48,000/-, EMI was fixed Rs.1893/-, service charges Rs.100/-, rate of interest was fixed Rs.13.99%, Advance EMI (Nos) NA, other charges Rs.125+1680/-, first EMI date 12.12.2012, tenure 36 months, initial payment made by the complainant Rs.21020/-, net disbursement amount of Rs.46095/- to the OP No.1. The complainant who is not an illiterate person but he is an advocate by profession and it is presumed that after going through the documents, he might have signed the terms and conditions of loan as far the question of non-supply of the terms and conditions of loan agreement is concerned, the complainant had never made any request to the Ops for supply of the same.

12. The copy of the terms and conditions of loan agreement shows that the amount financed by the Op No.2 is Rs.48,000/- and after deducting Rs.1905/-, the amount of Rs.46,095/- was disbursed to the Op No.1. Thus, we are of the opinion on a conjoint reading of all the document on record, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Ops. We are unable to agree with the contention of the complainant that the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.3206/- from the complainant.
13. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed and the parties shall bear their own costs.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced   

02.03.2015             ANITA KAPOOR                                   DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.                

 

                                                       

                                                                        DHARAM PAL                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT