BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 187 of 2020
Date of Institution: 01.09.2020
Date of Decision: 07.03.2023.
Tara Chand aged 38 years son of Shri Sukh Ram, resident of village Hanjira, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Raja Motors, Authorized Dealer for Bajaj Auto Ltd. Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its authorized signatory/ person.
2. Bajaj Finance, 4th Floor, Finserv Corporative Office, Off. Pune- Ahmednagar, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014 through its authorized person.
3. Bajaj Finance, through its Branch Manager, Branch office at Near SBI, Upper PNB, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER
Present: Mrs. Kiran Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.K. Saini, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant approached to the op no.1 for purchase of motor cycle model 00PF21 Platina ES CBS, the costs of which was Rs.48,340/- and the representative as well as dealing hand/ authorized person of op no.1 asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.14,750/- as down payment and they also stated the complainant that they will charge total amount of Rs.48,990/-. The complainant agreed to purchase new bike on loan. The op no.1 assured the complainant that they would get the bike financed from ops no.2 and 3 after paying down payment of Rs.15,000/- and completing other documentary formalities. Accordingly, complainant paid amount of Rs.15,000/- and also completed all the required formalities as per their instructions. It is further averred that now complainant has come to know that op no.1 has got financed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from the finance company while the actual value of the vehicle is only Rs.48,340/- but besides this they have also charged an amount of Rs.15,000/- as down payment against the vehicle purchased by complainant, which is totally wrong, against law and illegal. That complainant made complaints in this regard to the ops but ops did not bother about the same and in this way they have cheated the complainant and have got wrongful gain and further are guilty for unfair and maltrade practice also. That due to the above said act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of ops, the complainant has undergone much mental tension, harassment and humiliation as the complainant has to take about 100 rounds to the agency of op no.1 and has also suffered a lot of financial loss. The ops are liable to refund the excess amount charged from complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @2% per month and are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also liable to pay litigation expenses to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, initially op no.1 appeared and sought adjournments for filing written statement but did not file any written statement and ultimately opted to be proceeded against exparte on 27.12.2021.
4. Ops no.2 and 3 also appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting therein that op no.2 has no knowledge regarding the transaction mentioned in para no.3 of the complaint since the said transaction is between complainant and op no.1 and not with op no.2. It is further submitted that complainant approached to op no.2 and requested to extend financial assistance for purchase of a vehicle (Pulsar 100 ES Alloy CBS- Two wheeler) and considering the complainant’s application, request and credentials the op no.2 agreed to extend financial facility to the tune of Rs.58,630/- (which included financial charges of Rs.9630/- for 22 months). Later on as per mutual understanding a loan agreement Number L2WSIR08197855 was executed and signed by complainant in favour of op no.2. The monthly installment to be paid as per loan agreement was Rs.2665/- per month. It is further submitted that contract period was for 22 months starting from 03.03.2020 to 31.12.2021. At the time of execution of the loan agreement, the complainant has gone through and understood all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and then only signed and executed the loan agreement. The loan terms and conditions are not in dispute at any point of time and as on date the complainant is not in dues to the loan. It is further submitted that on road price of the subject vehicle intimated by complainant through the loan application form was Rs.60,111/- which includes Rs.48,557/- as ex-showroom price, Rs.3130/- towards RTO charges and Rs.4844/- towards insurance charges and Rs.3580/- towards PDS and accessories charges which are supposed to be remitted to op no.1 dealer. Further the loan application form executed and signed by complainant dated 20.01.2020 itself proofs that the amount financed is Rs.49,000/- (i.e. 81.5% of the ORP Rs.60,111) with an EMI of Rs.2665/- (i.e. amount financed Rs.49,000/- + financial charges of Rs.9630/- for 22 months together loan extended Rs.58,630). It is further submitted that difference between ex-showroom price i.e. Rs.48,557/- and on road price Rs.60,111/- is Rs.11,544/- which the complainant needed to be paid to op no.1 i.e. Rs.3210/- for RTO charges, Rs.4844/- towards insurance charges and Rs.3580/- towards PDS and accessories charges and on the basis of consent through the application form by the complainant op no.2 considered ORP of the vehicle as Rs.60,111/- and extended 81.5% financial assistance. It is also clear through the loan application form that there is no any initial payment made by the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has not filed any records to op no.2 for verification that complainant has remitted Rs.15,000/- as initial payment and same is denied. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant has tendered copies of documents i.e. his adhar card Ex.C1, tax invoice Ex. C2, policy schedule Ex. C3 and statement of account Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand. ops have tendered copies of documents i.e. stamp paper for agreement Ex.R1, loan application form Ex.R2 and tax invoice Ex. R3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that value of the motor cycle was Rs.48,340/- as is evident from invoice issued by op no.1 Ex.C2 and complainant got financed the motor cycle in question from ops no.2 and 3 but the amount of Rs.15,000/- charged from the complainant as down payment was extra charged from him and has not been adjusted towards repayment of loan amount and ops no.2 and 3 got deposited extra amount against repayment of loan amount from the complainant and has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops while reiterating the averments of ops no.2 and 3 has contended that from the written version as well as evidence placed on file by ops no.2 and 3, it is proved on record that ops no.2 and 3 have not charged any extra amount from the complainant and have charged the amount as per loan agreement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. We have considered the rival contentions on behalf of complainant as well as ops no.2 and 3.
11. Admittedly the price of the motor cycle in question as per invoice issued by op no.1 was Rs.48,340/- and complainant got financed the said motor cycle from finance company i.e. ops no.2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.49,000/- and the said amount of Rs.49,000/- was to be paid by ops no.2 and 3 by complainant in monthly installments of Rs.2665/- each. From the statement of account placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4, it is evident that complainant paid total amount of Rs.58,630/- to ops no.2 and 3 in monthly installments of Rs.2665/- each against loan amount of Rs.49,000/- and according to ops no.2 and 3, the amount of Rs.9630/- was to be paid by complainant to the ops no.2 and 3 as interest amount/ financial charges for 22 months. So, it is clear that ops no.2 and 3 have not charged any extra amount from the complainant. The amount if any paid to op no.1 as down payment was against the amount of RTO charges, insurance charges and accessories charges as these charges are charged by dealers of the vehicles from the customers on account of charges of RTO, insurance etc. So, it is not proved on record that op no.1 also charged any extra amount from the complainant and it is not proved on record by complainant that amount of Rs.15,000/- was extra charged from him rather the initial amount if any paid by complainant to op no.1 was for RTO charges, insurance and accessories. Further ops no.2 and 3 have also not charged any extra amount from the complainant and have only received the repayment of loan amount as per repayment schedule of the loan amount agreed between complainant and ops no.2 and 3. So, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the ops.
12. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 07.03.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
