Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is an exception to the judgement & order dtd.17.02.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowing the complaint bearing No.CC/10/560, awarding compensation at Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation at Rs.1,000/-.
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-
1. Appellant Bajaj Finance Ltd. is a registered company under the Companies Act and it advances Loan to the needy person for purchasing the vehicle, etc. On 23.08.2006 the respondent / original complainant – Balkrishna had purchased two wheeler – Bajaj Bike i.e. Bajaj Wave from Patni Automobiles – dealer and borrowed loan at Rs.24,000/- from appellant – Finance Co. As per agreement the respondent / complainant repaid the loan. At the time of borrowing the loan the documents, pertaining to the vehicle and Key were hypothecated with the appellant – Finance Co. However, according to the complainant / respondent, though he repaid the entire dues, appellant failed to return the hypothecated documents & key of the vehicle. Therefore, by notice dtd. 24.12.2008, he called upon the appellant – Finance Co to return the document but, the documents were not returned. By reply dtd.18.09.2009, the appellant – Finance Co informed the complainant to visit its office and take back the documents, etc. But according to the complainant / respondent, despite of visits documents and key were not returned. Therefore, he made a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
2. In response to the notice the appellant – Finance Co. appeared before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and resisted the claim by his reply in writing, contending inter alia, that the complaint is not within limitation and further the certificate of satisfaction was sent to the complainant by RPAD, asking the complainant to visit the office and take back the documents and key but the respondent did not turn up and filed false complaint on issuing second notice dtd.02.09.2010, etc.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur held that the appellant – Finance Co. committed deficiency in service by withholding the document and key of the vehicle and consequently awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order, o.p. – Finance Co. filed this appeal.
5. We heard Adv. Mr Mandar Pimpalkhare for the appellant, while before the admission of the appeal and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order and also the copies of complaint and written version which was filed by the appellant / o.p. before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
6. It is submitted by Mr Pimpalkhare, Ld. Counsel for the appellant that in spite of informing the complainant / respondent to take back the documents & Key by visiting its office, complainant / respondent failed to visit its office and filed false complaint, etc.
7. He has further submitted that the complainant / respondent was also informed by making Phone calls for several times but he failed to receive back the documents and Key of the vehicle and by issuing second notice just to bring the complaint within limitation, filed false complaint, etc. However, he has fairly conceded that the respondent / complainant has repaid the entire loan amount by instalments and no dues are outstanding against his loan account.
8. Mr Pimpalkhare, Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that its certificate of satisfaction was also sent to the complainant / respondent by RPAD on 09.01.2009 but he could not explain as to why the documents and Key of the vehicle are not sent to the complainant on satisfaction of the loan amount. When the appellant – Finance Co. was having postal address of the respondent / complainant, there was no difficulty for it to send the documents & key of the vehicle to the respondent / complainant by RPAD or by any other mode. There was no need to call the respondent / complainant to the office for receiving the documents & key. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant – Finance Co. that they were ready to handover the documents & key of the vehicle to the complainant but complainant failed to receive it, cannot be accepted.
9. Considering all these facts, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has rightly held that the appellant – Finance Co committed deficiency in service and therefore awarded compensation at Rs.5,000/- and cost of proceeding at Rs.1,000/-. Hence, no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
1. Appeal is summarily dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
Delivered on 29.09.2011.
