Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/27

BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVI RANJAN KR. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 23.07.2018

First Appeal No.27/2012

In the matter of:

Bajaj Auto Finance Through its Authorized Signatory Registered Office at Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Highway, According Pune-411035

:

Appellant

           

Versus

 

Shri Ravi Ranjan Kumar S/o. Sh. Ram Parvesh  Singh, R/o. H. NO. 2/5, Indra Vikas Colony, Delhi-110009

:

Respondents

 

                            

CORAM  :N P KAUSHIK

:

Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 15.06.2011 passed by Ld. District Forum No. V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.  Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed M/s. Gautam Motors, (through Its Manager Proprietor), B-81, GT Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi-11003 (in short the OP1) and Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. 13 KM Stone, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, Opp. Maharaja Agresen Hospital, Delhi (with registered office at Mumbai Pune Highway) (in short the OP2) to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- alongwith interest (being charged by them) to the complainant/ respondent.  OPs were also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- with the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  Further directions to OPs to change the amount of EMI from Rs.1,612/- to Rs.1,290/- were also given. 

 

2. Fact in brief of the case are that admittedly a motorcycle Bajaj X-CD 125 CC was purchased by the complainant from OP1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 44,312/-.  An amount of Rs.25,117/- was paid by the complainant in cash as down payment.  An agent of OP2 was sitting in the show room of OP1 on the relevant date i.e. on 24.09.2007.  Manager of OP1 asked the agent of OP2 to consider financing of the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-.  The said agent asked the complainant to sign blank loan agreement papers.  The complainant in good faith signed the blank loan agreement papers and also handed over 18 signed blank cheques for payment of EMIs to the agent of OP2.  Complainant was told that his EMIs would be Rs.1,290/- per month and he was sanctioned the loan of  Rs.20,000/-.  EMIs were to be paid for a period of 18 months. 

 

3. To the shock of the complainant it was revealed that OP2 had sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and had on that basis calculated the EMI of Rs.1,612/- per month.  Two cheques for Rs.1,612/- on 03.01.2008 and 19.01.20089 got dishonoured.  It was at this stage that OP2 informed the complainant that he had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- and the EMI was Rs.1,612/-.  Complainant made various requests for making corrections.  OPs did not pay any heed. 

 

4. Upon this the complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum.  Notices were sent to the OPs.  On 28.05.2009, Manager of OP1 named Sh. Manish appeared and sought adjournment.  On the next date i.e. on 20.10.2009 none appered for OP1.  OP1 was, therefore, proceeded against exparte.  From the side of OP2, a representative with the Counsel had put in appearance and had sought an adjournment for filing a written version.  On the next date i.e. on 17.03.2010, a Counsel appeared for OP1 and again sought adjournment for filing of written version.  Adjournment was granted subject to the payment of costs of Rs.500/-.  On the next date i.e. on 06.07.2010 none appeared for OP2.  OP2 was proceeded against exparte. 

 

5. Ld. District Forum relied upon the invoice exhibit CW-1/A showing the total cost of the vehicle as Rs.44,342/-.  Receipt exhibit CW-1/B showed the payment for Rs.25,117/- made by the complainant to OP1.  The said amount is also shown in the invoice exhibited CW-1/A.  Obviously the balance was only Rs.20,000/-.  Cleverly, OP2 financed Rs.25,000/- and also added financial charges and processing fees of Rs.4,016/- and Rs.610/- respectively.  Agent of OP2 prepared rough calculations which  are also placed on record as exhibit CW-1/D.  Ld. District Forum has thus rightly observed that the complainant was made to pay EMIs of Rs.1,612/- instead of Rs.1,290/-. 

 

6. In its appeal OP2 submitted that the Ld. District Forum passed a non-speaking orders and without application of mind.  He further submitted that no notice was given to the registered office of the company.  Next contention of OP2 is that he was deprived of the opportunity which was required to be given in view of the principle of audi alteram partem.

 

7. On merits, the Appellant submitted that the complainant had paid some instalments.  He was liable to pay other charges agreed upon in the loan agreement.  Matter required elaborate scrutiny and settlement of accounts.  Lastly OP2 submitted that there was an arbitration clause in the loan agreement. 

 

8. I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the Appellant Ms. Priyanka Tomar.  Admittedly OP2 put in appearance and sought adjournment for filing of written version.  His Counsel too had appeared.  Costs of Rs.500/- were imposed.  It was Appellant/ OP2 who thereafter  deliberately absented himself from the proceedings.

 

9. Appellant/ OP2 has made a futile attempt to challenge the case on merits.  He has not disputed that the correct EMI was Rs.1,290/- and not Rs.1,612/-.  He has also not disputed that the loan sanctioned to the complainant was Rs.20,000/- and not Rs.25,000/-. 

 

10. It is a settled principle of law that the arbitration proceedings are addition to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.  Any arbitration clause cannot stand in the way of present proceedings.  In view of the above, discussion I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.  The same is hence dismissed.  Both the OPs are directed to comply with the orders of Ld. District Forum dated 15.06.2011 and pay to the complainant as under:

 

1. refund Rs.5,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum w.e.f. 24.09.2007 till the date of its realization. 

 

2. OPs shall pay compensation and litgation charges to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to the complainant. 

 

11. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.   File be consigned to Records.  

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

13.