Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/252/2016

Surinder Kumar Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	252 of 2016
Date of Institution	07.09.2016
Date of Decision	08.12.2016

 

 

Surinder Kumar Mittal H.No.306, Sector 12, Panchkula.

   …..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd., SCO 26, Sector 26, Chandigarh.
2. Amar Electronics Plaza, SCO 22, Sector 11, Panchkula.               

                                  …..Respondents/Opposite Parties

3. The Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh.

(Performa Party for investigation &  registration of an FIR against guilty)

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh. Surinder Kumar Mittal, Appellant in person.

                  Sh. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

                          Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 25.10.2016.

 

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 14.7.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, with no order as to costs, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased a split AC on 20.4.2014 (Annexure PA-1) from Opposite Party No.2 by getting it financed from Opposite Party No.1. It was stated that the purchase price of the product was Rs.42,500/ which included Rs.500/- as installation charges. It was further stated that the complainant made Rs.3500/- as cash towards down payment. It was further stated by the complainant that amount of finance was to be paid in 13 equated monthly instalments, out of which he paid one advance EMI in cash hence, the balance amount of Rs.36,000/-  was to be paid in 12 monthly instalments, starting from June 2014 to May 2015.  It was further stated that the complainant duly paid all the instalments.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party No.1 had made efforts to withdraw more money from the complainant’s account, by presenting false cheque/ECS.  It was further stated that though payment of these false cheques was declined by the bank of the complainant, but, ECS charges were levied on the complainant on 13.10.2015.  It was further stated that the complainant took up the matter with Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3.  Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 (Amar Electrnoics Plaza) and No.3 (Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala – Performa Party in Complaint) despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 1.2.2016.
4. The Opposite Party  No.1  in its written version admitted the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.42,000/- (Annexure OP-1/1) from it, which was to be paid in 14 equated installments of Rs.3000/-, as per agreement.  It was further stated that the complainant paid 1st  advance EMI out of 14 EMI settled with the customer, as per loan agreement, paid during the purchase of the AC on 20.04.2014 and the same was credited by the dealer in the account of Opposite Party No.4 on 26.04.2014.  It was further stated that the remaining amount was to be paid by the complainant in 13 installments of Rs.3000/, but last installment got dishonored, due to the reason of insufficient fund, as a result an amount of Rs.3000/- stands due, as against the loan agreement till today.   It was further stated that the Opposite Party No.1 as goodwill gesture, not only waived off penal charges of Rs.1750/-, but also refunded Rs.457/-, which was deducted towards the ECS charges via NEFT dated 14.01.2016.  It was further stated that the complainant has tried to create confusion by showing wrong calculation. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.   In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.
8.  Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 14.7.2016.
9.  We have heard the Appellant in person and Counsel for the Respondent No.1, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10.  After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11.  On a perusal of documents placed on the record by the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, it is very clear that the retail invoice of the AC, in question, shows the value of the AC was Rs.42,000/-. It is also apparent from the document that the appellant made a down payment of Rs.3000/- and he was to pay the remaining amount of finance in 13 equated installments of Rs.3000/- which comes to Rs.39,000/- (13 x 3000). It is, therefore, proven fact that the appellant was to pay 13 installments @ Rs.3000/- instead of 12 installments as alleged by him. The appellant had further pleaded that he has also paid Rs.3500/- as cash in addition to Rs.3000/- as advance EMI and therefore he has to pay only 12 installments. This particular plea of the appellant does not hold good. The assertion of the appellant that he had paid Rs.3500/-, has no authenticity/genuineness and it is not supported by proper receipt from the company from where he purchased the said AC and in the absence of proper documentation of the said amount, the plea of the complainant that he had paid Rs.3500/- as cash seems to be false and concocted one and therefore, the said amount cannot be added against the price of the AC. On a perusal of the account statement of the complainant, the last installment i.e. 13^th one got dishonored a number of time (Annexure PA-03) and the 13^th installment is still due, to be paid by the appellant to the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, we find no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.   The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
13.   No other point, was urged, by the parties concerned.
14.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15.  Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

08.12.2016                

                          

                                                                     Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                               

                                                                                 Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                           

                                                                           Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Gp

 

                                STATE COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL No.252 of 2016

(Surinder Kumar Mittal Vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd. & Ors.)

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Surinder Kumar Mittal, Appellant in person.

Sh. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 25.10.2016.

 

Dated    the   8^th  day of  December, 2016

                       

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.

 

 

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                     Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	PADMA PANDEY MEMBER

 

Gp