Delhi

North East

cc/151/2010

Shri Rajeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeev Raj Bajaj - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 151/10

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rajeev Kumar S/o Shri Dharamveer R/o 1/5362, Street No.14, Balbir Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Shri Rajeev Raj Bajaj A-6, 100 Foota Road Shahdara, Delhi-94   Bajaj Auto Finance D-60/61, Narayana, Industrial Area Phase-2 Naraina, New Delhi-110028	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

25.05.10 10.02.23 16.02.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

     Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a motorcycle bearing no.DL5SZ5679 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill no. 88129 dated 15.05.2008 for a sum of Rs. 35,162/-. The Complainant stated that he paid Rs. 15,000/- but the Opposite Party No.1 issued a receipt of Rs. 13,513/- and the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/- was financed by Opposite Party No.2 for 33 months in equal instalments of Rs. 881/-each. It is also stated by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 had received the three months installments in advance. The Complainant also submitted that the Opposite Party did not withdrew any amount from his account no. 1213900105 and withdrew the amount from another account no. 1219900106 for first year. The Complainant paid 8 installments and stated that sufficient amount was lying in the account of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that on 24.04.10 the officials of Opposite Party came to the spot with one police man, at that time he had gone to his friend’s home and his family informed him about the incident and he came back to the spot. The Complainant stated that the officials of Opposite Party No.2 without giving any notice to him tried to take the vehicle in question with them. The Complainant submitted that the officials of Opposite Party No.2 illegally and forcibly took away the vehicle in question with them without giving any notice. The Complainant stated that he paid Rs. 15,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs. 12,334/- to Opposite Party No.2 in 14 equal installments but the Opposite Party No.2 did not issue the receipt of three months. The Complainant submitted that Rs. 27,334/- have been paid to Opposite Parties but neither the vehicle in question has been released nor the amount of the Complainant is refunded. This shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Party to refund his amount of Rs.27,334/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant paid Rs. 14,313/- and not Rs. 15,000/-. It is alleged that the Complainant did not suffer any harassment or loss on account of any action of Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that the complaint be dismissed.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 16.08.10 and on 28.03.11 an award/order was passed in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, the ex-parte order was set aside by order dated 22.02.2019 passed by Hon’ble State Commission. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 filed its written statement to contest its case. The Opposite Party No.2 has denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant approach the Opposite Party No.2 for financial help for purchasing the two wheeler. It considered the request of the Complainant and agree to advance loan to the Complainant.  A loan agreement was executed and it was signed by the Complainant. It is admitted that the loan to the tune of Rs. 31,716/- (including financial charges of Rs. 7,716/-) was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant. The said loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs. 881/- each. The first instalment was to be paid from 05.07.08. It is stated that as per the terms of the loan agreement the Opposite Party No. 2 was entitled to take possession of the vehicle. It is also alleged that there was an arbitrary clause in the agreement. It is stated that the Complainant has suppressed the fact that he himself had provided the bank details of central bank of india. It is stated that as per the direction of hon’ble District Court Delhi vide order dated 21.04.10, the Opposite Party No.2 has taken back the possession of the vehicle on 26.04.10. It is stated that on the date of taking back the possession of the vehicle on 26.04.10 an amount of Rs. 71,663/- was due towards the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Complainant may be directed to pay the balance to the Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has also filed his additional affidavit.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajeev Kumar, R/o 1/5262, Street No.14, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of   Shri Bhaskar Gupta, Assistant Manager Legal for Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Complainant.
8. It is an admitted fact that Complainant purchased a two wheeler from the Opposite Party No.1. It is also an admitted fact that Complainant took a loan of Rs. 24,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 for purchasing the said two wheeler.
9. The case of the Complainant is that he had given cheques of two bank accounts i.e. 1213900105 and 1219900106 to the Opposite Party No.1 for payment of the installments. It is the case of the Complainant that during the first year the Opposite Party No.2 presented the cheques belonging to account bearing no. 1219900106. It is his case that sufficient amount was lying in his account bearing no. 1213900105. It is his case that the Opposite Party No.2 has not presented the cheques belonging to his account where sufficient amount was lying and therefore, the cheques were dishonored due to the wrongful act of Opposite Party No. 2. It is his case that Opposite Party No.2 forcibly took away his two wheeler without giving him any notice.
10. From the perusal of the complaint and the evidence led by the Complainant shows that Complainant has given cheques of two bank accounts mentioned above.  It is his case that his account no. 1213900105. He has also given cheques of account no. 1219900106. He has nowhere disclose that whose account no. is 1219900106. He has also not disclose that as to why he has given the cheques of the account of other person i.e. account no.1219900106.It is also his case that for one year the cheques of the other person’s account bearing no.1219900106 were being presented by the Opposite Party No.1 and he kept mum and did not raise any objection in this regard. The Complainant is an educated person he did not point out that as to why the amount of the installments was not being claimed through his bank account bearing no.1213900105. This all shows that the Complainant was aware of all these facts and he did not raise any objection in this regard, which leads to the conclusion that this all was being done with the consent and knowledge of the Complainant. It is also seen from the record that the Opposite Party No.2 has issued notice to the Complainant regarding the dishonour of the cheques. Even then, the Complainant did not approach the Opposite Party No.2.
11. The Complainant has defaulted in the repayment of the installments and as per the loan agreement Opposite Party No.2 was entitled to take the possession of the two wheeler of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 has taken possession of the two wheeler and this is an admitted fact. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.2 has taken forcible possession of the two wheeler and without giving him any notice. This has not been rebutted by the Opposite Party No.2. Hence it is proved that Opposite Party No.2 has taken the possession of the two wheeler in an illegal manner.
12. From the perusal of the record it is shown that the Complainant has paid Rs. 26,647/- towards the cost of the two wheeler. The Complainant purchase the vehicle on 15.05.2008. The possession of the said motorcycle was taken by Opposite Party No.2 on 24.04.2010. Meaning thereby the Complainant has used this motorcycle for more than one year and 11 months. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded to the Complainant. This amount shall be paid by Opposite Party No.2 i.e.  Bajaj Auto Finance along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.2 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of litigation charges and harassment along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
13.  Order announced on 16.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President