Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/488

Babu.A.J - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv.Ajit Thomas

31 Dec 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/488

Babu.A.J
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Branch Manager,Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd
The Proprietor
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Babu.A.J

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. The Branch Manager,Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd 2. The Proprietor

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.Ajit Thomas

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
           The case of complainant is that he bought a brand new motor cycle bearing registration No.KL8 AB 5700, Bajaj CT 100 from the 2nd respondent on 18/8/04. The complainant bought the vehicle under hypothecation of the first respondent. The equal monthly instalment of the hypothecation was Rs.1,242/-. He paid all the dues timely and also done the foreclosure on 7/7/07. At the time of purchase the original spare key which is issued from the manufacturer was not given by the respondents. When the loan transaction was closed the complainant received only the Registration certificate and Insurance certificate. The original key which is using by the complainant is getting damaged due to daily use. The indicator lights and the horn of the vehicle are not working properly due to the damage of the original switch key. The first respondent given some other key to the complainant but not the original spare key of the vehicle. The petitioner demanded several times for the spare key. But was not given. The complainant is apprehending that by getting the original spare key any one can steal the vehicle. He sent registered request. But no reply also. The complainant issued 36 Nos. of cheques to the first respondent at the time of taking hypothecation. Even after the closing of dues the complainant has not received one cheque. Hence the complaint.
 
           2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte. 
 
            3. The complainant filed affidavit and Exhibit P1 to P6 to prove his cases. According to the complainant since the hypothecation transaction was closed by payment he is entitled to get back the original spare key, which is in the custody of respondents. He further states that there were 36 cheques were given by him to the respondents. Except one all the others were utilised by the respondents and he wants to get back the remaining one.
            4. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
            5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the original spare key and also to return the cheque and further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within a month.
 

             Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of December 2009. 




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S