DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 163/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
26.08.2021 24.11.2021 10.01.2024
Complainant/s:- | Manash Kr. Talukdar, 71 A/A, Natunpally, 1st Lane, Talpukur, Barrackpore, North 24 Pgs, West Bengal – 700123, P.O. Talpukur, P.S. Titagarh (Near Boropole Dipak Nagar Primary School) =Vs= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - Service Manager / Head of the Department of Local Office, In-Charge of Two Wheeler Finance Department, Bajaj Finance (Bajaj Auto Finance), Local Office : C/o, M.S. Enterprise (12901), Sahebcolony More, Vill: Bora, P.O. Mamudpur, P.S. Naihati, 24 Pgs. North, Pin – 743165, West Bengal.
Head Office : Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune 411035 Maharashtra, India. - Proprietor, M.S. Enterprise (12901), Bajaj Motor – Cycle Showroom / Seller, Saheb colony More, Vill: Bora, P.O. Mamudpur, Kalyani – Barrackpore Highway, P.S. Naihati, 24 Pgs. North, Pin – 743165, West Bengal. [State Code : 19]
- Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) Barrackpore, Administrative Building, State Transport Department, (Motor Vehicle Office) Govt. of West Bengal – 700120, Office of S.D.O. Building, P.O. Barrackpore, P.S. Barrackpore.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction upon the O.P No. 1 for taking back of the vehicle which was delivered on 14/01/2020 and refund of sum of Rs. 19,924/- which was paid as down-payment and to cancel the loan agreement and payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- and other reliefs. He alleged that on 14/01/2020 Complainant went to the show-room of O.P No. 1 to enquire about the purchase of a new Bajaj Motor-cycle. On that date O.P No. 1 and 2 jointly offered the Complainant to exchange his old motor-cycle and exchange value was assessed to Rs. 15,500/-. In addition they asked the Complainant to pay Rs. 4,424/-. By this way Complainant paid Rs. 19,924/-. Cost of the new motor-cycle was assessed to Rs. 96,627/- inclusive of all taxes. Taxes and other fees payable to ARTO office State Transport Department, Government of West Bengal amounting to Rs. 10,553/- which includes Rs. 500/- as hypothecation fee and Rs. 50/- as show-room inspection fee. They further stated that cost of Insurance Policy fixed to Rs. 7,195/-. By this way Complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,14,378/- as value of the car. On that time Complainant handed over is old motor cycle to O.P No. 1 and 2 along with all the connected papers of the said motor cycle. On that time O.P No. 2 also issued money receipt against total payment of Rs. 19,924/- as down-payment. On that time O.Ps took copy of necessary documents from the Complainant. On that time O.Ps gave bunch of papers / forms without filling the same to the Complainant and asked him to put his signature. Complainant raised strong objection as those documents were blank but they assured the Complainant that there is nothing to worry about that. Thereafter, Complainant put signature over the documents. In the evening of 14/01/2020 O.P No. 1 and 2 handed over new Bajaj Motor-cycle in favour of the Complainant. After coming home Complainant understood that the Engine No. and Chasis No. mentioned in the tax invoice and the challan are totally different. The motor cycle which was delivered to the Complainant is different from the tax invoice of the purchased vehicle. He also noticed that the delivered vehicle was a used vehicle having many scratches, spots and defects. Being cheated Complainant immediately went before the O.P No. 2/seller and took this matter into his notice.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 163/2021
They admitted that it was their mistake. Complainant on several occasions requested the O.P No. 2 to take back the delivered wrong vehicle and give him the actual vehicle which was purchased by him. Within a few days O.P No. 1 created a loan agreement with the aforesaid blank papers and signed forms. Over the said document it has mentioned that financed amount is Rs. 1,01,500/-, EMI start date 06/02/2020 and EMI amounting Rs. 3,788/-. He prays for necessary order.
On perusal of record we find that O.P No. 1 appeared in this record and filed W/V. He denied the entire allegations of the Complainant. He further contended that Complainant approached before the O.P No. 1 for extending financial facility for purchase of a motor cycle. O.P No. 1 agreed to extend financial facility to the Complainant for Rs. 1,36,368/- and extending the agreed terms and conditions of the loan Complainant took the said loan. Monthly installment was fixed as per loan agreement Rs. 3,788/- for 36 months. At the time of execution of the loan agreement Complainant has gone through and understood all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
During COVID-19 pandemic, R.B.I issued two circulars dated 27/03/2020 and 22/05/2020 and permitted the lending institution to grant a moratorium regarding payment of installment. Complainant paid no heed to the repeated demand of the O.P No. 1 and chosen not to pay the loan arrears. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P No. 2 and 3 not yet appeared in this record inspite of service of notice upon them. Case is running ex-parte against them.
TRIAL
During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. He also filed certain documents vide annexure no. A to F. No questionnaire has been filed on behalf of the O.P No. 1.
DOCUMENTS
At the time of filing affidavit-in-chief Complainant filed the following documents:-
- Annexure A – Money receipt dated 14/01/2020 for the amount of Rs. 19,924/-…1 sheet…Xerox.
- Annexure B – Delivery of vehicle vide Model no. PULNS160ABS, Chasis No. 33561, Engine No. 59416, Key No. 9077, Battery No. 901204…..1 sheet…xerox.
- Annexure C – Tax invoice dated 14/01/2020 regarding sale of motor bike amounting to Rs. 96,627/-. Warranty card dated 14/01/2020…..1 sheet…xerox.
With money receipt issued by Barrackpore ARTO…..1 sheet….xerox.
With money receipt issued by Barrackpore ARTO dated 22/01/2020 amounting to Rs. 10,553/-.
With Insurance Policy dated 14/01/2020 amounting to Rs. 7,198/-.
- Annexure D(a) Auto Loan Agreement dated 15/01/2020….1 sheet…Xerox.
With loan application form……..2 sheets……xerox.
- Annexure D welcome letter…..1 sheet…xerox.
- Annexure E repayment procedure….2 sheets…Xerox.
- Annexure F tax invoice that warranty card with receipt of Barrackpore ARTO.
With Insurance Policy…..4 sheets…xerox.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA on 11/09/2023. Complainant filed another BNA on 14/03/2023.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents. Complainant alleged in the petition of complaint that before taking delivery of new motor cycle O.P No. 1 and 2 produced some papers and forms and asked him to put signature over those documents. He raised objection but lastly he put signature over those documents. He further stated that he doesn’t know the contents of those documents. He produced certain documents before this Commission relating to the loan through which he took the aforesaid motor cycle.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 163/2021
On perusal of those documents we find that those documents contain the signature of Complainant. It is not the case of the Complainant that O.P No. 1 and 2 by applying force took the signature over the aforesaid documents and other documents relating to the loan of aforesaid motor cycle. Moreover Complainant did not lodged any complaint before any authority alleging that O.P No. 1 and 2 collected his signature over some documents forcibly. So it is clear before us that Complainant voluntarily put signature over the aforesaid documents. As per loan agreement (copy filed by the Complainant at the time of filing of this case) we find that one agreement of loan was executed in between Complainant and O.P No. 1 because said documents bears the signature of Complainant and representative of O.P No. 1. On perusal of record we find that at the time of giving evidence Complainant also produced copy of some other documents relating to the aforesaid loan transaction with mark of annexure C / exhibit C. Complainant also produced some other documents relating to the said loan including the loan application form with the mark D(a), D, E. Those documents also bears the signature of the Complainant. Moreover, Complainant produced the copy of those documents which indicates that O.P No. 1 handed over copy of those documents in favour of the Complainant and as a result Complainant has able to produce copy of those documents.
From the document [annexure D(a)/exhibit D(a)] dated 15/01/2020 we find that finance amount has been assessed as Rs. 1,01,500/-. Finance Charged as noted Rs. 34,868/-. Total amount of loan was assessed has Rs. 1,36,368/- and installment was fixed @ Rs. 3,788/-.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has applied for loan before the O.P No. 1 and O.P No. 1 sanctioned the same and Complainant was agreed to pay Rs. 3,788/- per month for 36 months commencing from 06/02/2020. Complainant further alleged that old vehicle was given to him instead of new vehicle. He further alleged that engine no., chasis no. of the tax invoice are different with the actual engine no. and chasis no. of the motor cycle which was delivered to him by the O.P No. 1 and 2 but Complainant did not take any steps for examination of the motor cycle which was given to him by an expert.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant is the consumer and O.P No. 1 and 2 are the service provider.
In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has failed to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt/ Accordingly, we find that Complainant is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
That the present case be and the same vide no. C.C./163/2021 is dismissed on contest against the O.P No. 1 and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P No. 2 but without any order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
