Ashok Leyland Finance

**Tanu** · 09-02-2009, 08:16 AM

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1385/2006 against C.C.No.3/2006 Dist.Forum-II,Hyderabad.

Between:

1.Ashok Leyland Finance,

(Presently known as IndusInd Bank Ltd.,

86, Chemiers Road, Chennai 600 019,

Rep. by its Managing Director

2. Ashok Leyland Finance,

(Presently known as IndusInd Bank Ltd.)

State Office-III Floor,

Minerva House,

94, S.D.Road. Secunderabad- 500 003,

Rep. by its Manager. …Appellants/

O.Ps.

And

Dr.G.Pratap Reddy,

S/o.G.Rama Krishna Reddy,

Aged about 31 years, Occ:Doctor,

Plot No.37, Rajeev Nagar,

Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad-45. …Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the appellants : M/s.V.Gowrisankar Rao

Counsel for the respondent : M/s.Gopi Rajesh & Associates

CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha , Hon’ble Member. )

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.3/2006 on the file of Dist.Forum-II, Hyderabad the opp.parties preferred this appeal.

.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant , doctor by profession purchased TVS victor for an amount of Rs.46,700/- financed by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.40,250/-, payable in 22 monthly instalments at Rs.1,750/- per month. Without any default the complainant paid the amounts from 14.12.2003 till 8.9.2005. After payment of the instalments the complainant requested the opposite parties for issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’ but did not receive any response .To the complainant’s surprise the opposite parties issued a legal notice dt. 10.11.2005 calling upon the complainant to pay Rs.2000/- with interest of Rs.587.59 or to surrender his vehicle within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Inspite of the complainant’s reply, the opposite parties did not choose to issue No Due Certificate . Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate , to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs.

The opposite parties filed counter stating that the complainant is due 14th instalment and Cheque bearing no.838916 issued in that respect was dishonoured and acting on the information given by Vysya Bank they sent a legal notice to the complainant and vide letter dt. 17.2.2005 the opposite parties informed the complainant that the cheque dt. 7.1.2005 was not cleared. Had the complainant shown the bank statement, dt.6.12.2005 they would have issued ‘No Due Certificate’ . INGVysya Bank sent another letter dt.20.3.2006 stating that at the time of handing over the physical returned instruments, the entire Delhi instruments were returned but the data picked up that of the Hyderabad location. . Since the cheque number and amount for Hyderabad location and Delhi location were same during the said cycle, the system has picked up the returned cheque as that of Hyderabad location but infact the said cheque relates to Delhi Location . This error was noticed later and immediately they handed over the return of Hyderabad location by letter dt.20.3.2006, but the complainant’s counsel informed that the complainant was not willing for any outside Court settlement and that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Based on Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 to B3 documents the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opp.parties jointly and severally to issue ‘No due certificate’ and ‘No objection certificate’ and also pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- together with costs of Rs.1000/-

Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that it is only based upon Ex.B1 letter dt.17.2.2005 issued by ING Vysya Bank that Rs.1750/- issued by the complainant towards his loan account no. AHH 12355 H was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds , that opposite parties got issued a legal notice calling upon the complainant to pay the remaining amount and that they are justified in not issuing the No objection certificate.

We have perused the material on record. The facts not in dispute are that the complainant, a doctor by profession, purchased TVS Victor from the opposite parties on a hire purchase agreement by monthly instalments of Rs.1750/- for an amount of Rs.40,250/- . It is the complainant’s case that he paid the total amount without any default from 14.12.2003 till 8.9.2005 and approached the opposite parties to issue ‘No Due Certificate’, but inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties did not comply and made him run from pillar to post .

The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties contended that No Due Certificate was not issued because the complainant had an amount due since cheque for an amount of Rs.1750/- issued by the complainant was dishonoured for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’. He further contended that ING Vysya Bank, Chennai vide Exs.B2 and B3 letters dt. 7.2.2006 and 20.3.2006 informed that the opposite party submitted that 4,300 cheques amounting to Rs.83,59,351/- for collection on 7.1.2005 out of which the subject cheque was one of them. It is clearly stated that “since the cheque number and amount for Hyderabad location and Delhi location were same during the said cycle, the system has picked up the returned cheque as that of Hyderabad location but infact the said cheque relates to Delhi location”. When it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties have made a mistake and got issued a legal notice to the complainant , they ought to have issued No Due Certificate when the complainant had requested them vide Ex.A4 reply to legal notice. Ex.A2 is the statement of account issued by Andhra Bank, NIMs Branch, Punjagutta in which the entire amounts paid by the complainant through various cheques starting from 27.12.2003 till 9.9.2005 were honoured and the entire amount was cleared by the complainant and all the 22 cheques issued by the complainant were honoured. Apart from not issuing No Due Certificate, it is also the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have sent antisocial elements to pressurise him to make the payments which he had already made. When the opposite parties themselves have accepted that they have made a mistake in sending the legal notice to the complainant, when infact the complainant had paid all the amounts, the act of the opposite parties in not issuing the No due Certificate is clearly an act of deficiency in service. We observe from the record that the complainant had made all the payments by 9.9.2005 and this complaint was filed by the complainant on 2.1.2006 and the order of the District Forum is dt. 18.7.2006 and till then the complainant who is a doctor by profession was made to run from pillar to post for the No Due Certificate for no fault of his. However we are of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the District Forum is excessive and we find it a fit case to reduce the same to Rs.30,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part reducing compensation awarded by the District Forum from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.30,000/- while confirming rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER

Dt. 15.4.2009 (SA)

**Sidhant** · 09-12-2009, 09:43 PM

Amarjit Kaur wife of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.708, New Sham Nagar, near Village Sunet, Ludhiana.

Vs.

1. M/s Walia Autos, through its authorised Dealers for Kinetic Scooters, Motor Cycles and Mopeds, near Circuit House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2. M/s Ashoka Leyland Finance Limited, The Mall Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

1. This complaint corners around a Kinetic Motor Cycle purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 on 4.7.2005 for Rs. 38,560/-.

2. Her case is that at the time of purchase, made payment of Rs. 8500/- to opposite party no.1 towards the sale consideration and for remaining sale price furnished security, in lieu of which 20 blank signed cheques were obtained by opposite party no.1 from her. Her grievance in the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the two wheeler had manufacturing defect, which defect was brought to notice of opposite party no.1, who had assured to replace the vehicle with a new one or to refund initial amount of Rs.8500/- along with 20 blank cheques. But despite such promise, neither the defect was removed in the vehicle nor replaced and also not returned the cheques. Hence, in circumstances was compelled to return the two wheeler to opposite party no.1. Both opposite parties in connivance with each other consequently cheated and defrauded the complainant by supplying her motor cycle with manufacturing defect. For such deficiency or resorting to unfair trade practice, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-, to refund her amount of Rs.8500/- with 18% interest and also to return her 20 blank cheques with litigation cost of Rs.5500/-.

3. Opposite party no.1 in reply claimed that the complaint is based on frivolous, false allegations, not maintainable and she has not come to the Fora with clean hands. They denied deficiency in service on their part. However, admitted purchase of motor cycle by the complainant but denied that it had any manufacturing or any other defect. At the time of purchase, complainant only paid Rs.8500/- as part payment out of the invoice value of Rs. 32,300/-. In addition, she was required to pay Rs. 3148/- as registration charges and insurance money etc. Financer-OP2 financed the two wheeler by granting loan of Rs.22600/- to the complainant, which they paid to opposite party no.1 through cheque dated 12.87.2005 drawn on HDFC bank. Complainant then issued cheques of paying instalments in favour of opposite party no.2, with which opposite party no.1 has nothing to do. Complainant still owes Rs.12,848/- as cost of the motor cycle including Rs.50/-of temporary RC charges, Rs. 1800/- as registration charges, Rs.798/- insurance charges and Rs.500/- as file processing charges. She out of Rs.12,848/- only paid Rs. 8500/- and Rs. 4348/-remained due against her, qua which she admitted on the back of delivery note dated 4.7.05. This amount was never paid by her and she is liable to pay the same with interest. Allegations of manufacturing defect or conveying such defect are denied. Claimed that there was no defect in the two wheeler. Allegations of replacing the motor cycle or return her money are false and fabricated, as no such assurances were given. So, the complaint not maintainable.

4. Opposite party no.2 vide separate reply has also controverted the allegations of the complainant. They claimed that the complaint is not maintainable and they have nothing to do with mechanical defect in the motor cycle. Complainant purchased the meter cycle from opposite party no.1 and vide contract no.PLL02164H dated 5.7.05 obtained loan of Rs.22,800/-, which was repayable in 24 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1328/-each. Complainant was defaulter in payment of instalments. Hence, she of her own on 28.11.2005 came to their office, conveyed inability to pay the instalments and requested to surrender the financed motor cycle. On her request possession of the two wheeler was taken by them and same was sold in open market by inviting quotation, in which they suffered loss of Rs. 11,882/-, for recovery of which separate suit is being filed against her. Pre sale notice was also issued to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.

7. Complainant in support of her allegations, tendered her own affidavit Ex.C1/A and brought on record invoice Ex.C.3 qua purchase of the motor cycle for Rs. 32,300/- from the opposite party no.1. Vehicle was got insured by paying Rs.798/- vide cover note Ex.C.5. About her allegations that the vehicle had manufacturing defect, except own affidavit no evidence is adduced by the complainant nor she got the motor cycle inspected or checked from any expert to establish any manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such proof, we can not conclude that the motor cycle had manufacturing defect. Nor any proof is brought on record that any such defect ever was brought to notice of opposite party no.1 and thereafter they promised to replace the same with new one or to refund the initial charges taken. Her this averment in affidavit can not be believed, in view of the denial of the same in affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Col. P.S. Walia prop. of opposite party no.1.

8. It is established from loan agreement Ex.RW2/B obtained by the complainant consequent to her application Ex.RW2/A from opposite party no.2 that purchase of motor cycle was financed by opposite party no.1, who granted loan of Rs.22,800/- to the complainant, which was repayable in 24 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1328/- and 20 blank cheques were given by the complainant to opposite party no.2 not made out from affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Paramjit Singh Bansal authorised signatory of opposite party no.2. They were not given by complainant to opposite party no.2 as per allegations in the complaint.

9. Version of opposite party no.2 that the complainant herself surrendered the motor cycle to them when failed to repay the instalments as per schedule, is apparent from letter RW2/E dated 28.11.2005. She voluntarily under that letter surrendered the motor cycle to opposite party no.2.

10. It is in aforesaid back drop that we are required to adjudge that there was any deficiency on the part of any of opposite party. Complainant failed to prove her allegations qua mechanical or manufacturing defect in the motor cycle. Same was not possessed by opposite party no.2 forcibly. Rather, she herself surrendered it to opposite party no.2, when failed to pay the agreed instalments under the loan agreement to opposite party no.2. In these circumstances, in our view, complainant herself failed to honour the agreement and as such we find no merit in the complaint. Therefore, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

**Sidhant** · 09-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Tamma Koti Reddy,

S/o Venkateswara Reddy,

R/o Vallabhapuram,

Kollipara Mandal,

Guntur district. … Complainant

AND

1. Ashok Leyland Finance Services &

Solutions Private Limited,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Head office at Sudarshan building,

86 Chambers Road,

Chennai-600 018,

Tamilnadu state.

2. Ashok Leyland Finance Services

& Solutions Private Limited,

rep. by its Branch Manager,

Branch Office at D.No.8-8-20, 1st floor,

Gaddipati Complex,

Station Road, Tenali,

Guntur district. … Opposite parties

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 02-06-09 in the presence of Sri T. Durga Prasad, Advocate for complainant and of Sri M.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R
Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant seeking directions on the opposite parties for return of ‘C’ Book and ‘No Objection Certificate’ and also to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of litigation.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The opposite parties are engaged in doing finance business by advancing loans to two wheeler vehicles having its branches at various places including Tenali. The complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for finance to his two wheeler bike Bajaj CT 100 which he purchased from Varalakshmi Automobile showroom, Tenali and accordingly they have financed the amount on 21-1-05. A hypothecation deed was also executed.

The complainant paid all the instalments numbering to 18 @Rs.2,018/- pm and cleared the loan amount by August, 2006. But the opposite parties did not return the ‘C’ Book and also ‘No Objection Certificate’. The complainant made several requests but of no use. Of late the complainant had developed an intention to sell away his motor bike for his necessities, but for want of ‘C’ Book and ‘No Objection Certificate’ he is unable to do so and failed to meet his urgent necessities. The complainant submits that opposite party deliberately and intentionally withheld the ‘C’ Book and issue of ‘No Objection Certificate’. Having vexed with the behaviour of the opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 11-10-06 and also seeking the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering. The opposite parties received the same, but did not respond in any manner. Hence the complaint.

The opposite parties have filed their version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. Further, they submit that the opposite party is a leading finance company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and dealing the business in hire purchase etc and having its branches all over India. In the day to day course of its business, the complainant approached the opposite party on 27-1-05 for financial assistance for purchase of Bajaj Boxer two wheeler but not on 21-1-05 as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the financial assistance was extended to the complainant by entering into an agreement vide AGTP 915H.

There is an arbitration clause in the agreement to decide any dispute arise in between the parties touching various aspects. Thus this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

The name of the opposite party is Indus Ind Bank Limited of its finance division formerly known as M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, but not Ashok Leyland Financial Services and Solutions Limited as alleged in the complaint.

The claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs.50,000/- is untenable and fictiuous. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. There is no need to bear any grudge against the complainant. The alleged dispute is not a consumer dispute. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The points for consideration are that,

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute?

2. Whether the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute as alleged by the opposite party?

3. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service towards the complainant?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent?

Both sides have filed their affidavits in respect of their pleadings. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-9 are marked, whereas Exs.B-1 to B-6 are marked on behalf of opposite party.

POINTS 1 AND 2:- The learned counsel for the opposite party mainly contends that the hire purchase agreement entered in between the parties contain an arbitration clause as such all disputes arising out of it shall be referred to arbitrators and this Forum has no jurisdiction. However, the opposite party has failed to file copy of agreement for perusal by this Forum. Even if it is assumed that such an agreement contains an arbitration clause, the jurisdiction of this Forum is no way ousted. It is choice of the parties to choose the remedy before arbitrators or before the Forum. There is no specific bar either in the alleged agreement or in the C.P. Act ousting jurisdiction. This is settled position of law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.

It is contended by the opposite parties that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The opposite parties are dealing in finance, leasing and hire purchase by advancing finance to its clientale. Certainly, it is extending services to consumer goods such as vehicles. There is a relationship between the parties as financier and consumer and the service rendered is a consumer service. The following decisions would make it clear about the same.

1. 2007 CTJ 411 (CP) (SCDRC)

2. 2007 CTJ 1145 (CP) (NCDRC)

3. 2008 (3) CPR 45 (NC)

Thus both points are answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

POINT No.3:- The facts are in no way dispute in between the parties. The complainant purchased a two wheeler vehicle Bajaj CT 100 Dx bearing No.AP7M 9435 from varalaxmi Automobiles for which the opposite parties have advanced the amount which is to be repaid in 18 instalments. Accordingly, the complainant has repaid the amount to the opposite parties. The complainant has also got insured the vehicle with Bajaj Allianz, which is evident from the policy vide Ex.B-5 (filed by the opposite party himself). There is also temporary certificate of registration of the vehicle vide Ex.B-4 apart from copy of voucher given by Varalaxmi Automobiles. On perusal of the documents filed by the opposite party, it is revealed that they have intimated to the Regional Transport Officer by letter dated 10-01-07 for cancellation of agreement, which is made in their favour in the registration certificate. They have also terminated the agreement of hire purchase by obtaining signature of the complainant. But it is not understood why they have not returned ‘C’ Book and ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant despite making several demands and issuing legal notice vide Ex.A-1. The facts on hand discloses that in the month of August, 2006 itself the loan was cleared, but notice of termination is delayed. An inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party in terminating hire purchase agreement and informing the Regional Transport Officer during the year 2007 and non delivery of ‘C’ Book and ‘No Objection Certificate’ certainly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.4:- The complainant had intention to sell away the motor bike and he has also issued legal notice dated 11-10-06 in order to meet his pressing demand. For want of above referred documents he could not do so. Certainly it caused mental agony, pain and suffering. On this count, we feel it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.3,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to return the ‘‘C’ Book’ and ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant forthwith.

2. We also direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the deficiency of service committed by them.

3. We further direct them to pay Rs.500/- towards costs of litigation.

4. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

**Advocate.sonia** · 09-21-2009, 03:29 PM

Majji Eswara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o Aripaka Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

… Complainant

1. Ashok leyland Finance Limited, D.No.12-4-2/1, III Floor, M.M.Complex, 4 Road Junction, Pudimadaka Road, Anakapalle – 531 001.

2. IndusInd Bank Limited,Sudarsan Building, 92(Old No.86),Chamiers Road, Chennai– 18.

... Opposite Parties

: O R D E R :

1. The case of the complainant is, he purchased Bajaj Motor Cycle at Sabavaram under the finance of the 1st opposite party for a total extent of Rs.40,400/- with interest @ 7.3% p.a., including finance charges and total finance was Rs.48, 888/-. There is a contract between the parties on 02-06-2005, under which it is agreed that by 10th of every month payment of installment of Rs.1,358/- be made and in case of failure, a penal expenses of Rs.358/- be paid to the opposite party. On 23-06-2006 a notice was received by the complainant that cheque dated 07-06-2006 for Rs.1,358/- bounced for reason of insufficient funds and demanded to send Rs.1,608/- to IndusInd Bank Ltd., Chennai.

Thereafter the complainant sent a reply that his account has got sufficient funds and he has no objection to present the cheque and take the amount. Further on 29-06-2006 the opposite party supervisor came to the house of the complainant and in his absence took away the vehicle and plea of the complainant to return the vehicle, expressing readiness to pay the remaining installments, proved futile and the opposite party refused to take the payment. The complainant in all paid Rs.32,276/-. The opposite party issued a notice dated 07-08-2006 with false allegations that they will be constrained to sell vehicle, for which a proper reply was given by the complainant.

The complainant did not render proper service to its customers and put them to huge loss purposefully and suppressed the facts which amounted to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint for payment of Rs.32,274/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of agreement i.e., 02-06-2005 till repayment by the opposite party, a compensation for causing mental and financial hardship to a tune of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

2. Subsequent to the filing of the petition IndusInd Bank is impleaded as 2nd opposite party, in view of the fact that the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party merged together and carrying the business in the name of IndusInd Bank.

3. The opposite party filed a counter admitting the hire purchase agreement between them and the complaint for a total sum of Rs.48,880/-, on condition of repayment in equated monthly installments of Rs.1,358/-. It also pleaded that it was agreed an amount of Rs.250/- has to be paid in case of post dated cheque bounced back. It is his further plea that the complainant is defaulter and not prompt in making payment, in all 6 times cheques issued by the complainant bounced back.

Those incidents are cheque for the month of September 2005, November 2005, December 2005, February 2006, April and May 2006. Thus the conduct of the complainant, led the opposite party to exercise its discretion as to the re-possession of the vehicle for consecutive defaults and accordingly closed the account of the complainant and it was over due to an extent of Rs.3,870/-, with future liability of Rs.6,790/- aggregating to sum of Rs.10,660/-.

The vehicle was repossessed through an authorized agent on 20-07-2006 and the complainant was issued a registered notice on 07-08-2006 informing him that the Company will be constrained to sell the vehicle, as per terms of agreement, if he fail to settle the account. The complainant sent a reply legal notice dated 11-08-2006 that the dis-honour of the cheque dated 07-06-2006 was not on account of insufficient funds and the bank might have issued such an endorsement by mistake.

The complainant has to pursue his remedy if any on the Banker claiming damage but cannot claim on this opposite party attributing deficiency of service. The terms of the contract agreed upon between the parties were not followed by the complainant and as such right has been accrued on this opposite party for repossession of the vehicle. Though a legal notice was issued, the complainant without making payment, came up with this complaint alleging deficiency in service. There are no bonafidies in the complaint. Hence it is liable to be dismissed.

4. At the time of enquiry both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8 are marked.

5. Both the counsels were heard. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

6. In this case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the financier/opposite party, the undisputed fact is that the complainant purchased from Varun Bajaj Show Room, Anakapalle, under the finance provided by the opposite party by the agreement dated 02-06-2005. The agreed sum to be repaid is Rs.48,880/- in monthly installments of Rs.1,358/-.

It is also agreed that in case the post dated cheque issued by the complainant bounced back, he is liable to pay Rs.250/- for each such incident towards penal charges. For the default in making payment of monthly installment by providing sufficient funds to honour the post dated cheques by the complainant, the opposite party repossessed the motor bike on 20-07-2006. The default alleged was six cheques bounced back for insufficient funds within a year, out of these the complainant paid by way of cash, the two cheques bounced.

It is the specific case of the opposite party that an amount of Rs.10,660/- is still due from the complainant. The complainant was issued a notice Ex.B.3 dated 07-08-2006, advising him to come and settle the account within a week failing which the Company would be constrained to sell the vehilce in as it is condition, reserving the right to recover the balance, if any after appropriation of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. The complainant resisted this claim and denied any liability by issue of Ex.A.5 registered lawyer’s notice.

He even alleged that he approached them for return of the vehicle and offered to pay the installments, but the opposite party refused to accept it. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum on 29-09-2006 alleging deficiency in service and seeking for payment of Rs.32,274/- along with interest @ 24% per annum till repayment and also Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and financial hardship and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

7. Ex.B.9 hire purchase agreement dated 02-06-2005 between the parties not being in dispute naturally both the parties will be bound by the terms and conditions thereon.
It is not much in dispute that the borrower / complainant has to make repayment in monthly installments and in case of default, the opposite party is entitled for penal interest and further condition that in case of any cheque bounced back additional amount of Rs.250/- per such return is also liable is not in dispute. Condition No.15.2, 15.3 of this agreement empowers the opposite party to repossess the vehicle, in case of default and even sell, transfer or assign the assert, either by public auction or by private treaty and appropriate the sale process towards repayment of the outstanding.

The complainant is said to be a defaulter as his cheques bounced back consecutively. Such being the case, the right to repossess the vehicle by the opposite party for failure to repay the installments by the complainant cannot be disputed. For that it is to be seen whether there is any default on the part of the complainant.

8. Ex.B.5 to Ex.B.8 are the post dated cheques which bounced back during the year 2005 and 2006. Ex.B.7, Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.6 were cheques issued for the month of April-06, May-06 and June-06, which bounced back. Earlier Ex.B.8 cheque dated 07-09-2005 also bounced back. It is represented by the counsel for the opposite party, of the six cheques bounced back, only two cheques repayment were made by cash and remaining four cheques still remained unpaid.

Though the complainant has taken objection that there are sufficient funds in his account and the return of the cheque was improper and he could not be found fault for that, that explanation is only for one cheque dated 07-06-2006 i.e., Ex.B.6. But he failed to substantiate that contention. There is not even such explanation for the remaining cheques which bounced back.

These facts would clearly establish that the complainant is defaulter. Moreover, inspite of Ex.B.3 notice from the opposite party requiring him to come and settle the account, after repossession of the vehicle the complainant evidently did not do so. On the other hand he issued Ex.A.5 lawyer’s notice denying any such liability and even asserting that it is the opposite party which has refused to settle the account and accept the payment, though offered but there is no proof for this assertion. Ex.A.7 show that still an amount of Rs.27,660/- is due from the complainant and this statement of account was dated 20-07-2006.

Evidently instead of making the payment of balance the complainant rushed to this Forum questioning the right of the opposite party, which has repossessed the vehicle, who is well within the terms of the agreement. Hence in our view the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and consequently he is not entitled for the any reliefs asked for.

9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each party is directed to bear their own costs. Advocate fee Rs.2,000/-.

**Harinder Singh** · 12-07-2011, 09:41 PM

We purchased Bjaj Pulsar Bike in March 2004 with a loan from Ashok leyland finance ltd. Now loan has been comleted but we have not received NOC from your concern. Find below detail and make arrangement to send it our new address H. NO. 26-a, Bank Colony, Kali Devi Mandir Road, Hisar-125001, 9255482900

Name-Mohinder Singh, S/o Sh. Ram Ditta
Bajaj Pulsar
No. HR-20-J, 8931
color-Black
Registration add: H.No. 177-A, Friends Colony, Hisar-125001

Waiting for reply at harry1312003@yahoo.co.in

**joellawrence007** · 01-03-2012, 02:00 PM

January 3, 2012 Mr. Benedict John Lawrence
Columban Anthony Villa,
Paltodi Wadi, Giriz
Vasai West,
Dist Thane – 401201
Mob : 9673344518
Email: joellawrence007@gmail.com

M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
The Manager
Mumbai.

Subject : Non Reciept of the original RC booklet
Ref: Registration No: MH-04BT-762; Owners Name : Benedict John Lawrence; Bike- Pulsar.

Dear Sir,

I, Joel Lawrence, son of the aforesaid gentleman Mr. Benedict Lawrenceis writing herewith on behalf of him and also further for any other correspondence and also sharing the same correspondence address mentioned above.

This has a reference to the aforesaid bike (PULSAR) which was purchased on 24^th September, 2003 from M/s. Veera Auto, Tamtalao, Vasai.

In regards to the above, I received my RC paper in first year when I purchased this bike. Later now its been 8 years that I havent received the original RC booklet yet. Just for records in the meanwhile, I was sent a photopcopy with a True Copy done, a copy of the same is enclosed.

Request you to please look into this and send me my original RC booklet at the earliest without any further delay as I need it for some personal registrations to be done.

Kindly contact me for any queries/clarification on my above given mobile number.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

For and on behalf of Mr. Benedict Lawrence,
Joel LawrenceDecember 17, 2011

Mr. Benedict John Lawrence
Columban Anthony Villa,
Paltodi Wadi, Giriz
Vasai West,
Dist Thane – 401201
Mob : 9673344518
Email: joellawrence007@gmail.com

M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
The Manager
Mumbai.

Subject : Non Reciept of the original RC booklet
Ref: Registration No: MH-04BT-762; Owners Name : Benedict John Lawrence; Bike- Pulsar.

Dear Sir,

I, Joel Lawrence, son of the aforesaid gentleman Mr. Benedict Lawrenceis writing herewith on behalf of him and also further for any other correspondence and also sharing the same correspondence address mentioned above.

This has a reference to the aforesaid bike (PULSAR) which was purchased on 24^th September, 2003 from M/s. Veera Auto, Tamtalao, Vasai.

In regards to the above, I received my RC paper in first year when I purchased this bike. Later now its been 8 years that I havent received the original RC booklet yet. Just for records in the meanwhile, I was sent a photopcopy with a True Copy done, a copy of the same is enclosed.

Request you to please look into this and send me my original RC booklet at the earliest without any further delay as I need it for some personal registrations to be done.

Kindly contact me for any queries/clarification on my above given mobile number.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

For and on behalf of Mr. Benedict Lawrence,
Joel Lawrence