Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/137/2024

Pratham S/o Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Bajaj Fincrop - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

CC No. 137 of 2024

Pratham Vs. Bajaj

 

Present:       Sh. Balbir Singh Bhagat, Adv. for the complainant.

         

Order:-

1.                Counsel for the complainant appeared at 3:30 PM. Heard.

2.            Complainant alleged, he purchased Access 125 (Drum) Marka Suzuki (for short “Scooter”) in the sum of Rs.80,721/-. The scooter was financed by the respondents, and he had made down payment of Rs.10,000/- only to the respondent. He was paying the loan installment to the respondent (no such document attached). On 12.3.2024 his friend took the scooter and had given to Punjab and on 13.3.2024, some unknown person had stolen the scooter from Punjab and the matter reported to the local PS Sujanpur, District Pathankot, Punjab. Thereafter, he (complainant) told to the respondent no.1 the theft of the scooter and as per the requirement of the respondent, he handed over to relevant document to respondent no.1 but the respondent did not comply the same (what was to be done on the part of the respondent no.1, has not been pleaded by the complainant). He raised his grievance by sending legal notice Ex.C4 to the respondent no.1 telling the respondents that after the theft of the scooter, it was the liability of the insurance company, who make the payment of the loan amount to the respondents (neither, the name of the insurance company disclosed nor police report placed on record). The respondent despite receipt of legal notice Ex.C4, failed to take any necessary action, which is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, constraining him to file the complaint.

3.              First of all, as per the version of the complainant, respondent are the financer and the financer is not service provider as per Section 2 (42) of the Act. The financer advanced the loan against payment of interest. The view of this Commission is fully supported by the law in case titled Ram Deshlahara Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. 3 (2006) CPJ 247 (NC). There relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, is not established. So, complaint is liable to be dismissed, it being not maintainable.

4.                Coming on the merits of the case, the only, grudge of the complainant is scooter was stolen, within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Sujanpur, District Pathankot, Punjab on 13.3.2024 and after the theft of the scooter, loan being insured, he was no liable to make the payment of loan amount. First of all, complainant has not brought any document on the record, such as, copy of FIR or DDR showing theft of his scooter on 13.3.2024, within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Sujanpur, District Pathankot, Punjab. Neither, he has not brought on record, any insurance policy nor the name of the insurance company. It is a patent defect, in the evidence of the complainant. Moreover, theft of the scooter was to be intimated by the complainant to the insurance company not by the financer. So, the complaint of the complainant is having no head and tail and it is not a fit case to issue, notice of it, to the respondents, as it is lacking substance in it.

5.             Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, the complaint is, dismissed, it being not maintainable as well as devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigation. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.  This order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, on his appearance before the Commission.

6.                  File be consigned to the records.

 

                                                                                      President,

L. Member.                    Member.                                 DCDRC, YNR,

                                                                                     26.4.2024.

 

Typed by:- Aarti