Punjab

Patiala

CC/20/310

Shveta Dhaliwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Sanjiv Bajaj - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.K.Batish

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 310/2020
Date of Institution	:	8.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	17.3.2023

 

Shveta Dhaliwal wife of Sh.Amol Singh Dhaliwal, resident of Flat No.C-3, Teachers Flat, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Campus, Sidhuwal Bhadson Road, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Sh.Sanjiv Bajaj, Managing Director & CEO, Bajaj Finserv, 4^th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagarm Pune-411014.
2. Sh.S.Sreenivasan, CFO, Bajaj Finserv, 4^th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar Pune-411014.
3. Ms.Sonal R.Tiwari, Company Secretary, Bajaj Finserv, 4^th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar Pune-411014.
4. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finserv, Near National Nursery, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.
5. Prop. M/s Kohli Furnishers, Lower Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Dinesh Batish, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Gaurav Singla, counsel for OPs No.1to4.

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Shveta Dhaliwal wife of Sh.Amol Singh Dhaliwal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bajaj Finserv and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the  complainant are as follows:

That she approached Kohli Furnishers, Lower Mall, Patiala, OP No.5 for purchase of box bed with side tables. She selected box bed with side tables, the payment of which she wanted to be paid through EMIs. For this, OP No.5, called employee of OPs No.1to4 namely Bhagwant Singh, to his shop, who assured that the loan will be sanctioned, as a result of which complainant ordered box bed with side tables to OP No.5, who assured that the same will be ready within a week. After one week, OP No.5 called complainant for taking delivery of bed. Complainant asked OP No.5 to call employee of OPs for sanctioning of loan but to the utter surprise of the complainant, who came and told that loan cannot be sanctioned due to her low CIBIL score.

As the order was ready and an amount of Rs.6000/-was already paid to OP No.5, so complainant arranged the amount of Rs.29,000/- of her own and paid the same to OPNo.5 on 8.11.2029 vide receipt No.2450.

Complainant sent legal notice dated 26.11.2019 to the other OPs but of no avail and they replied the same on false and flimsy grounds. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP No.4 only but upon notice Ld. counsel appeared on behalf OP No.4 also appeared on behalf of OPs No.1to3 and filed written statement.

In the written statement OPs No.1 to 4 raised certain preliminary objections. It is pleaded that Bajaj Finserv Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 and is a core investment company as defined under Core Investment Companies (Reserve Bank of India) Directions,2011 and is not engaged in business of financing of consumer durable loan; lifestyle finance; business & Personal loan to the end customers nor it has any branch offices anywhere in India. Further complainant has applied loan from Bajaj Finance Limited, as her husband availed four loan facilities from this Company. As such complaint against OPs No.1to4 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

On merits, it is averred that there is neither any contract/agreement executed between the parties nor any type of consideration has ever been passed between them. No loan application has been submitted by the complainant. The complainant has also failed to mention any data with regard to approach to OP No.5.There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1to4.After denying all other averments, OPs No.1to4 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. In evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant tender Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Exs.C1 original bill dated 8.11.2019,Ex.C2 legal notice, Ex.C3 to C7 original postal receipts, Ex.C8 reply to legal notice,Ex.C9 copy of I.E. CIBIL report and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.1to4 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Shivani Garg, Ex.OPB affidavit of Bhagwant Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence of OPs No.1to4.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that she selected box bed with side table from OP No.5 and wanted to make the payment of the same through EMI for which OP No.5 approached OPs No.1to4 for advancing the loan, which was not done on the ground of her low CIBIL score, and she was forced to make the payment from her own sources/savings.
8. No doubt the complainant has purchased box bed with side tables from Kohli Furnitures(OP No.5), for an amount of Rs.35000/- vide bill,Ex.C1.There is no document produced on record by the complainant to show that OP No.5, assured her for advancement of loan from OPs No.1to4..
9. Here, it is important to note that, while admitting the complaint, cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP No.4 only. At that time, complainant failed to challenge this order, as without appearance of OP No.5, it cannot be established on record that any assurance was given by it for  advancing the loan from OPs No.1to4.There is also no document in the form of application for loan, placed on record by the complainant.
10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.1to4 has argued that Bajaj Finserv is a trade/brand name which is being used by Bajaj Finserv Limited & Bajaj Finance Limited, as per their mutual agreement. Bajaj Finserv Limited is not engaged in business of financing of consumer durable loan; lifestyle finance; business & Personal loan to the end customers and it has nothing to do with the finance of box bed with side tables as alleged.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove her case that any agreement for advancing loan was arrived at with OPs or she has filed any application in this regard. As such, we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint being without any merit. We order accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
12.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED: 17.3.2023

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President