Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/286/2018

P.Muthu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Grievance Redressal,Bajaj,Auto Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.Senthilkumar

14 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on  :09.03.2011         

Date of disposal             :14.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:   THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                             : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-1

                                 THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA      : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.286/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 14th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

P.Muthu,

S/o.Periyasamy,

No.44, Otteri Salai, EVR colony,

Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091

                                                                               .. Complainant.                                

..Vs..

 

The Grievance Redressal,

Rep.by its Manager,

M/s.Bajaji Finserve Lending,

Bajaji auto finance ltd.,

Raheja Towers, Mount road,

Chennai-600 002.                                                                     ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. P.Senthilkumar and 2 other.

 

Counsel for   opposite party                     : M/s.Ranjani Devi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite party to furnish the entire detail statement of loan account in respect of Articles loan Regd No. LB17HHAY821069 dated 05.11.2005 and to pay a compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental tension agony and deficiency of their service.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 85/2011.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.286/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant submits that he had obtained an article loan from the opposite party vide loan no. LB17HHAY821069 dated 05.11.2005 for a sum of Rs.36,395/- which is repayable in 24 EMIs of Rs.1,835/- per month and the opposite party obtained post-dated cheques.  The complainant remitted the entire amount without any default as per loan agreement.  Some dues were also collected by the agents of opposite party on 29.11.2010 in full quit and settlement receipt was given by the opposite party.  In January 2011, unfortunately the subordinates of opposite party started threatened complainant that dues are still pending and a non-bailable warrant is ready and at any moment the complainant would be arrested and the due amount will be recovered from his salary, apart he will lose the job.  The complainant was mentally affected and the complainant verified in all the courts and found no such arrest warrant was pending.  The complainant submits that acts of opposite party clearly shows the deficiency of service without rendering proper service and claiming very huge amount for the settled claim.  The opposite party agents behaved in unruly manner by exposing abusive words which led the complainant to mental tension and agony.  Due to the unruly behaviour of opposite party the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 21.01.2011 by exposing all the reasons and asked them to furnish the real statement of account and details of non bailable warrant and the same was received but no reply from the opposite party. 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties submits that the complainant had entered into loan No.403/103852 on 21.10.2005 and availed a loan of Rs.36,395/- for purchase of personal computer which is repayable in 24 months @ Rs.1,835/- per month @ Rs.10.50% (Flat) interest for which the complainant had issued post-dated cheques.  The opposite party submits that complainant was a chronic defaulter and cheques issued for 9 to 24^th instalments were dishonored due to “Insufficient Funds and Account Closed”.  As per the Hirer Summary of the loan account, the Complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.29,360/- (besides penal charges).  On 29.11.2010 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- which was adjusted against three installments.  The opposite party requested the complainant to settle the balance payment and close the loan account but till date the complainant has not come forward to pay the balance payment.  The opposite party took inputs from Chennai Office officials and collections agents, and the opposite party had not issued any full quiet and settlement receipt or there was no mention about settlement in the receipt.  The opposite party submits that they have not filed any case against the complainant for the bouncing of cheques and hence the question of non bailable arrest warrant and threatening the complainant does not arise.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complaint was filed with pecuniary interest by complainant and hence the complaint may be dismissed with a direction to complainant to make balance payment of Rs.24,360/-.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is anydeficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavitand documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on his side.The opposite party had filed written version, proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.B1 was marked on their side.

4. Point No.1:-

The complainant submits that he had obtained an article loan from the opposite party vide loan no. LB17HHAY821069 dated 05.11.2005 for a sum of Rs.36,395/- which is repayable in 24 EMIs of Rs.1,835/- per month and the opposite party obtained post-dated cheques.  The complainant remitted the entire amount without any default as per loan agreement.  Some dues were also collected by the agents of opposite party on 29.11.2010 in full quit and settlement receipt was given by the opposite party.  In January 2011, unfortunately the subordinates of opposite party started threatened complainant that dues are still pending and a non-bailable warrant is ready and at any moment the complainant would be arrested, and he will lose the job.  The complainant verified in all the courts and found no such arrest warrant was pending.  Due to the unruly behaviour of opposite party caused mental tension and agony and the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 21.01.2011 by exposing all the reasons and asked them to furnish the real statement of account and details of non bailable warrant and the same was received but no reply from the opposite party.

5. The opposite parties submits that the complainant had entered into loan No.403/103852 on 21.10.2005 and availed a loan of Rs.36,395/- for purchase of personal computer which is repayable in 24 months @ Rs.1,835/- per month @ Rs.10.50% (Flat) interest for which the complainant had issued post-dated cheques.  The opposite party submits that complainant was a chronic defaulter and cheques issued for 9 to 24^th instalments were dishonored due to “Insufficient Funds and Account Closed”.  As per the Hirer Summary of the loan account, the Complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.29,360/- (besides penal charges).  On 29.11.2010 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- which was adjusted against three installments.  The opposite party had neither issued any full quiet and settlement receiptnor any mention about settlement in the receipt.  The opposite party submits that they have not filed any case against the complainant for the bouncing of cheques.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complaint was filed with pecuniary interest by complainant and hence the complaint may be dismissed with a direction to complainant to make balance payment of Rs.24,360/-.

6. There is no dispute that the complainant had availed an article loan of Rs.36,395/- for purchase of personal computer from the opposite party.  The said loan is repayable in 24 instalments @ Rs.1,835/- per month.   The complainant in his averment stated that he was regular in repayment of EMIs without any default and even he paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards full settlement of loan and a settlement receipt was issued by opposite party.  On the other hand, the opposite party contended that the complainant was chronic defaulter and cheque issued for instalments from 9^th to 24^th were dishonored due to reason “Insufficient funds and Account Closed”.  It is observed from the Ex.A1 filed by Complainant and Ex.B1 filed by opposite party that the cheques issued by complainant were dishonored for the reason “Insufficient funds and Account closed”.  It is also evident from the Ex.A1 that receipt  No.1099099 dated 29.11.2010 for Rs.5,000/- paid by the complainant was not for full settlement of loan.  Whereas it is clearly mentioned in the receipt that the payment was received against the “principal overdue”.  The complainant suppressed the facts of transactions regarding the repayment of loan and also failed to file bank statement to establish timely and full repayment of loan.  Hence the contention of the complainant that full settlement of loan was made under Ex.A1 is not maintainable.

7. The complainant contended that the opposite party subordinates threatened the complainant that still dues are pending and a non-bailable warrant was ready and at any moment the complainant would be arrested, and he will lose the job.  The opposite party denies the allegation and states that no case was filed against the complainant for bouncing of cheques.  In fact, the complainant himself in his averments admitted that he had verified with all courts and found no such warrant was pending.  No document proof was filed by the complainant to establish the threatening of complainant by opposite party and hence the same is not maintainable. The contention of complainant regarding providing real statement of account, the complainant himself filed the same as Ex.A1 and the question of arrest warrant does not arise since no case was filed against complainant by opposite party in any court for bouncing of cheques.  The complainant failed to prove that the  opposite party sent collection agents who behaved in unruling manner by using abusive words.  Hence the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

 

8. Based on the observations from the above, this Commission is of the considered view that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as contended by complainant.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled forany relief Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14^th day of September 2022.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1		Final settlement receipt.
Ex.A2	21.01.2011	Lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A3		Acknowledgement card.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1

09.11.2010

Copy of  the hirer summary issued by the opposite party.

 

MEMER – I                           MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT