Sunkara Brahmam S/o Ramulu, H.No.6-2-1107/A,

New Thirumala Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Road,

Nalgonda Town and District.

…Complainant.

1) Bajaj Auto Finance, C/o Venkataramana Bajaj Show Room,

Veeraiah Chowdary Complex, Opp: Urdu Medium School,

Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Town and District. Represented by

its Authorized Signatory.

2) Bajaj Auto Finance, Door No.12-13-1474, 4th Floor, Maspack House,

Spencer Market, Moulali Road, Tarnaka, Secunderabad,

Hyderabad-500 017. Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties.

1. It is the say of the Complainant Mr.Sunkara Brahmam S/o Ramulu that he had approached the Opposite Party No.2 for financial help to purchase a TV, and the estimated cost of the TV was Rs.21,050/-

Contd…2/-

- 2 -

and the same was sanctioned to him by Opposite Party No.2, but before availing the sanctioned loan he had paid Rs.7,020/- towards advance 4 EMIs and issued 8 cheques bearing Nos.313488 to 313495 for the remaining amount of Rs.14,030/-. Agreeing that he will pay the said amount in equal installments, i.e. Rs.1,755/- towards each month.

The complainant further says that from cheque No.313488 to 313492 were encashed by the Opposite Party No.2 from his bank account which is the Nalgonda Co-operative Central Bank Limited, situated at Nalgonda. But, a person namely Shravan Kumar (D.M.A.) who works in the Opposite Party No.2’s Nalgonda Branch had called him by phone and said that the cheque No.313493 was returned without clearance on 3rd April, 2008, and asked him to pay the above said cheque amount in cash in their branch, promising that he would return the above said advance cheque within seven days. On believing the same the complainant had paid the cash by hand on 21st April, 2008.

The complainant further says that when he went to the bank to deposit the next month’s installment, he came to know that the above cheque No.313493 was encashed by the Opposite Parties in the month of May, 2008. He immediately went to Opposite Party No.1 office situated in Nalgonda and asked about the double payment receiving on a single EMI. The office bearers have answered him that he has to go to the main branch which is situated in Pune and get the clarifications, and Mr.Shravan Kumar gave a reply that the mistake which had occurred was not their fault but it is the mistake of the bank people. When the complainant again went to the bank and enquired in the bank, they gave

Contd…3/-

- 3 -

a reply that the above said cheque was never returned by the bank uncleared. The cheque was presented in the month of May only and the same was cleared. By observing all these circumstances, the complainant had requested the bank people to stop payment on remaining cheques, i.e. cheque Nos.313494 and 313495, and the same was informed to the Opposite Parties.

The complainant further says that in the month of June, some of the employees of Opposite Party No.1 came to his house, demanded and threatened him that he has to pay remaining two installments at once. At that time the complainant was willing to pay the remaining one installment as per his version if they issue the loan clearing certificate. The employees of Opposite Party No.1 further threatened the complainant that if he failed to pay the remaining two installments they will take away the TV which was purchased on loan and made a quarrel some scene infront of his house while the other residents of surrounding houses were seeing. For this he and his family members have felt great insult infront of neighbours. At that time also the complainant had told to the persons who came to his house that he would pay the remaining one installment at once because the Opposite Parties had collected double payment on cheque No.313493. This went on for some time.

The complainant further says that on 23-1-2009 he had received a notice from Opposite Parties that they had appointed an Advocate namely C.B.Pathy as conciliator who stays at Hyderabad and the complainant has to consult him on his grievances, for that the complainant had sent a reply letter to Mr.C.B.Pathy.
Contd…4/-
- 4 -
The complainant further says that as he was working in a college and preparing for D.S.C. he was intentionally forced by the Opposite Parties to run here and there to settle his problem. For that he was disturbed mentally and he could not well prepare for D.S.C. examination.

He further says that he got a telephonic call from Cell No.9052341300 from an unknown person, saying that he represents Opposite Parties, and stated that even after receiving notices from Opposite Parties why the complainant had only sent a letter, without paying the amount and threatened that if he does not pay the amounts he will face legal actions and they will see that complainant gets an arrest warrant and get arrested. For that on fear of getting arrested the complainant had approached this Forum to get justice.

The complainant prays that for the above said reasons he should be compensated with an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.

2. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had not responded nor represented by any one on receiving the notices from this Forum, hence exparte.


3. The complainant had filed an affidavit in support of his complaint and also filed documents, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-9.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

1) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2?

Contd…5/-

- 5 -

2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim he made

in the complaint? If so, for what reason?

3) To what extent the complainant is entitled of the claim?


5. POINT No.1: Ex.A-1, dated 2-10-2007 is a Certificate issued by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant at the time of loan proposal accepting that the complainant had been enrolled with a Proposal No.400 004334 in their institution, and in that they have accepted that they were going to finance for the purpose of purchasing a TV ( 29 inches Poison Theatre ) with an amount of Rs.21,050/-, and further mentioned that first due EMI date was 15-10-2007, and the complainant has to pay 15 installments in consecutive, each EMI amount stands as Rs.1,755/-. In that certificate, the Opposite Party No.2 addressing the complainant mentioned that they are thankful to the complainant as he had chosen their institution to serve him. They also promised that they will render their service in an accurate way without any remarks. They also promised the complainant that they will provide good quality of services at any moment to maintain the customer relation in a harmonious way which will be beneficial to both of them.

Ex.A-2, dated 21-4-2008 is a Receipt bearing No.400231439 signed by the agent of Opposite Party No.2 namely G.Shravan Kumar. In that receipt it is clearly shown that an amount of Rs.1,755/- had been received by Opposite Party No.2 from S.Brahmam towards Proposal No.4334, and in that receipt they had clearly mentioned that the amount received was towards installment No.6 which had to be paid through cheque bearing No.313493, dated 15-3-2008, given in advance.

Contd…6/-
- 6 -

Ex.A-3 dated 2-5-2008, a request letter written by the complainant to the Manager, Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda, requesting that as he had been mislead by the employee of Opposite Party No.2 that the cheques No.313488 to 313492 had been cleared without any delay, but the cheque No.313693 which is given towards 6th installment had not been cleared in spite of presenting the cheque in the bank, and asked him to pay in cash and the same was done by the complainant. But, as per the bank statement it is shown that the cheque No.313493 was cleared on dated 10-5-2008, for that reason his request was that to stop the subsequent cheque Nos.313494 and 313495 until his problem is solved by Opposite Party No.2.

Ex.A-4 dated 23-5-2008 is a letter addressed to the Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant stating that as he has availed the loan facility from their institution and issued eight cheques towards monthly installments and from that five cheques were cleared without any problem, but the cheque bearing No.313493 towards 6th installment is in dispute for the reason that agent Mr.Shravan Kumar (D.M.A.) had asked the complainant to pay in cash towards 6th installment as the cheque No.313493 was dishonoured by the bank as stating that it does not participate in clearing by NDCCB Bank, Nalgonda. For that the complainant had paid Rs.1,755/- in cash on 21-4-2008 and obtained a receipt. After that when the complainant had verified his bank accounts after some time he noticed that the Opposite Party No.2 had presented the disputed cheque in the bank and the same was cleared on 10-5-2008. When the same was questioned by the complainant, the office people had answered him that it is the mistake of the bank and they did

Contd…7

- 7 -

not tried to clear off the dispute. Hence, he had requested the Bank Manager to stop payments towards further cheques and the same is intimated to the Opposite Party No.1, and the same was acknowledged.

Ex.A-5, dated 22-5-2008 is a Customer Statement issued by the Opposite Party No.1 by receiving Rs.100/- as stated by the complainant from him without giving receipt. Receiving of Rs.100/- by Opposite Party No.1 is not proved by the complainant because they have refused to issue the receipt for the amount they received to issue customer statement and the same was issued on a waste paper, in which the Opposite Party No.1 had shown under the head “Financial Terms” an amount of Rs.21,050/- was financed to the complainant and Rs.10/- was charged towards financial charges, and an amount of Rs.1,120/- was charged towards processing charges and an amount of Rs.7,020/- was charged towards advance EMI. Under “Present Profile” they had shown that receivable amount was Rs.21,060/- and received amount was Rs.14,040/-, dishonoured was rupees zero, and they had shown the amount Rs.7,020/- which was paid in advance before sanction of the loan as “not deposited”. In the same customer statement under the head of “Payment Details” they had shown that they had received 8 cheques from 313488 to 313495 which will be presented on every month 15th from 15-10-2007 to 15-05-2008, one cheque in a month. Under the same head they had shown that cheque No.313493 was returned on 3-4-2008 which is recorded on 29-4-2008 as “does not participate in clearing”, and further under the same head they had shown that advance EMIs which were paid by the complainant before sanction of the loan to the Opposite Party No.2 were adjusted towards 9th installment to 12th installment.
Contd…8

- 8 -

Ex.A-6 dated 15-1-2009 is a notice received by the complainant from the Opposite Parties stating that the punctual payment of each installment is the essence of the finance agreement. As the complainant had defaulted in payment of two installments in spite of repeated follow-up made by them, the complainant had failed to make payment or to surrender the said product to them, hence they have been constrained to initiate criminal and civil proceedings against the complainant for the recovery of the amount. However, before initiating any legal action against the complainant they are willing to give one more opportunity to the complainant to settle the dispute amicably. For the above said reason they are appointing Mr.C.B.Pathy, Advocate as a conciliator, as such the complainant is requested to appear before the above said person on 25-1-2009 who resides at Hyderabad. If he failed so, they are forced to take criminal as well as civil action against the complainant, and the complainant is solely liable/responsible for the consequences.

It is noticed by the Forum that the above said notice was not signed by any authorized person of the Opposite Parties.

Ex.A-7 is a lengthy letter sent by the complainant to Mr.C.B.Pathy, Advocate, who had been appointed as a conciliator by the Opposite Parties. In reply to the notice dated 15-1-2009 which was received by the complainant on dated 20-1-2009. In which the complainant had explained the whole story from the time of he approaching the Opposite Parties for financial help the incidents which occurred in between until he received the above said notice, and in that he also mentioned about the payments he made and not receiving the receipts from the Opposite Parties for his payments as towards advance EMIs.

Contd…9
- 9 -

Ex.A-8 is a courier receipt on which reply letter was sent to Mr.C.B.Pathy.

Ex.A-9 is a xerox copy of Bank Pass-Book Statement bearing Account No.2307 in the Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda, in the name of the complainant, in which it is clearly shown by the bank people that the above disputed cheque bearing No.313493 was cleared on 10-5-2008 and an amount of Rs.1,755/- was debited from the complainant’s account. The same account sheet of pass book shows that the cheque bearing Nos.313494 and 313495 were presented by the Opposite Parties in the bank and the same were stopped on dated 3-6-2008 and on 4-7-2008 simultaneously, in spite of receiving a letter from the complainant that he made a request to the bank people to stop the cheques until his problem is solved by the Opposite Parties and the same was brought to the notice of Opposite Parties by the complainant.

After going in detail through the exhibits A-1 to A-9 and affidavit of the complainant we noticed that before paying the said loan amount of Rs.21,050/- the Opposite Parties had received Rs.7,020/- from the complainant as 4 advance EMIs, but they did not issue any receipt for the amount they received in cash and in spite of that they are showing that they had financed Rs.21,050/- and the same was made to believe by the complainant that the entire amount was financed by the Opposite Parties. Here, we can observe that where the complainant had paid Rs.7,020/- before utilizing the loan the actual loan given by the Opposite Parties was Rs.14,040/- as per the customer statement issued by the

Contd…10

- 10 -

Opposite Parties, the initial amount paid by the complainant Rs.7,020/- adjusted towards 9th installment to 12th installment in spite of adjusting them for installments No.1 to 4. This clearly shows that they are manipulating the accounts to avoid taxes.

Coming to the disputed point, the cheque No.313493 which is presented by the Opposite Parties was cleared on 10-5-2008. In spite of that the complainant was made believe by the agent Mr.Shravan Kumar who works in Opposite Party No.2’s branch office Opposite Party No.1 situated in Nalgonda town in advance in the month of April that the cheque was presented as per schedule and the same was not cleared by the bank and forced the complainant to pay in cash for that installment towards cancelled cheque promising him that he will return the returned uncleared cheque within seven days and the same was not done by the Opposite Party No.1. This clearly shows that the persons who are working in Opposite Party No.1 had mislead the complainant.


In spite of receiving request letters and repeated visits along with oral request the Opposite Party No.1 kept a deaf ear towards the complainant and did not rectify the mistake done by them and wantedly prepared to harass the complainant by going to the complainant’s house and forcing him to pay the balance installments, otherwise they will take off the financed TV and also threatened him that the complainant will face dare consequences. As this all went in the presence of surrounding residents who gathered there while the Opposite Party No.1 employees were making a big scene in front of the complainant’s house as per the affidavit of the complainant. Further as stated by the complainant in his

Contd…11
- 11 -

affidavit that they felt great insult in front of their neighbours and surrounding residents as he being a lecturer who was humiliated by the Opposite Parties. Here, we too observe that when a person who is in teaching profession is given more respect by each and every person in the society and where a guru is treated as God in our society because he is the path layer of a child’s future. If his family was humiliated by any person what might have went in his and the family members minds in that situation. Where the Opposite Parties are not permitted to do the same by any law made as per the constitution. Where the government had issued licence to the Opposite Parties to do the above said business feeling that as they will be one of the pillars for the economical growth of the country, where we were made to believe that the above said statements of the complainant in his affidavit and the documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-9 were true because the Opposite Parties had not represented by any person and contested the above facts. Therefore, we hold that there is a grave deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2.

Before coming to the conclusion, we would like to quote a decision taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in dispute between: GDA Vs.Balbir Singh 1986-2004 Consumer 8287 (NS) : 2004 CCC 27 (NS) : (2004) 5 SCC 65 has a bearing on the issue on the hand, where in which it is stated that if a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he had paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he had paid the amount there would be deficiency in service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment.

Contd…12
- 12 -

In the present complaint also the same point arises where the complainant is made to run from pillar to post by the Opposite Parties by misleading him that the mistake was with the bank and they asked him to go to Pune where the Head Office of Opposite Parties is situated and get his accounts rectified. Hence, the Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay as vicarious liability for the acts of their employees.


7. POINT No.2: In the light of above observations in Point No.1 where the complainant was made to run from pillar to post and was humiliated in front of his house by the Opposite Parties and got threatening from an unknown person through a telephonic call, we opine that he should be compensated adequately.


8. POINT No.3: In the result, we direct the Opposite Party No.2 to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony and harassment. We further direct the Opposite Party No.2 to deduct Rs.1,755/- (Rupees One thousand seven hundred and fifty five only) from the above said amount as remaining installment which was to be paid by the complainant to them and issue a receipt acknowledging the same. The remaining amount Rs.23,245/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand two hundred and forty five only) should be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this Order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to

Contd…13/-
- 13 -

claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this Order till realization. If the same was not complied by the Opposite Party No.2 the complainant can approach this Forum for further action.

Complainant is the registered owner and driver of the Bajaj Pick-up Auto bearing Reg.No.KL-2V/1254. The 1st opp.party is the Insurance Department Officer of the Bajaj Finance Ltd., Pune. The 2nd opp.party is the manager of Bajaj Finance Ltd., Sarathy Motors, Kollam. 3rd opp.party is the New India Assurance Co., Kollam Branch office land the IVth opp.party is the New India Assurance Co., Pune. The complainant purchased Bajaj Pick up Auto from the sarathy Bajaj Auto Ltd., Kollam At the time of purchasing the vehicle was insured in the name of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. bearing Policy No.31/152600/166874 the valid policy dated 28.4.2006 to 27.4.2007.

On 29the September 2006 at about 1.30 p.m. Bajaj Pick up van met with an accident. On 13th October 2006 the complainant given an application to the 3rd opp.party for the purpose of arranging spot survey. The 3rd opp.party has appointed a Spot Surveyor for inspecting the vehicle land ascertaining the destroyed spare parts, labour charge report and summary of Assessment. After the inspection, the spot surveyor gave a summary of assessment for Rs.10,394.14 ps. After completing the work of Bajaj Auto Ltd the said workshop received an amount of Rs.14,990/- from the complainant After releasing the vehicle from the above said workshop the complainant took the vehicle to another workshop for patch work painting and body leveling. From 15.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 the above said vehicle was in Sunil Industries workshop at Mayyanadu for body leveling painting and patch work.

After completing the work the complainant submit the entire bill before the 3rd opp.party. But the opp.parties refused to pay the bill amount. The complainant demanded many times to pay the spot summary assessment bill amount. But the opp.parties not ready to pay any amount to the complainant. At the time of purchasing the vehicle the opp.parties are agreed to pay any claim due to accident, the entire amount will be payable by the 3rd opp.party But the opp.party did not pay the bill amount. The act of the opp.party amount to the unfair trade practice.. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint.

The 2nd opp.party filed version contending as follows: Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. having its registered office at Mumbai, Pune is public Ltd company incorporated under companies Act, 1956, It is also registered as a Non-banking Finance Co. with Reserve Bank of India. The company is primarily engaged in the business of providing consumer finance through various schemes and financed products includes two wheelers, Consumer durable of well known brands manufactured by reputed entities like L.G Samsung, Godrej etc Computers like HCL in addition to Personal Loan to needy and credit worthy persons. The company is managed by professionals as per the Corporate Governance Rules as applicable. The opp.party states that the contents of the complainant which are specifically admitted by the opp.party are only true and rest all are denied. The complainant has entered into Loan Agreement No.444/24956 on 28.4.2005 and availed finance of Rs.99,000/- for the purchase of vehicle Bajaj Goods Carrier.

The monthly instalment to be paid per month is Rs.3,629/- The contract period is of 36 months, rate of interest is 10.65% The opp.party states that the insurance claim was settled by the insurance company on 14.12.2006 for Rs.6,660/- The opp.party states the claim amount was not refunded to the complainant as instalment No.19 for Rs.3,629/- plus Penal interest of Rs.649/- towards instalment No.8 was due from the complainant. The opp.party through its branch had informed to the complainant about the outstanding amount however, complainant failed to pay legitimate dues. Meanwhile cheque NO.518920 issued by the complainant against instalment No.20 was dishonored for the reason ‘Not Drawn on us” and hence refund of insurance claim amount was on hold. Thereafter the complainant on 13.2.2007 paid instalment dues against instalment No.19 however penal interest of Rs.1,297/- was due from complainant . The opp.party as per terms of agreement, refunded insurance claim amount after adjusting Penal interst of Rs.1,297/- Insurance claim amount Rs.6,550/- less penal interest Rs.1,297/- There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked.

No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties.

Points 1 and 2

Complainant filed this complaint for getting amount of Rs.14990/- and Rs.98,890/- as compensation from the opp.parties. Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed vakalath and version. Opp.parties 3 and 4 through served with notices chose not to filed their version disputing or denying the averments made in the complaint. Opp.parties 1 and 2 produced 3 documents but opp.parties 3 and 4 did not turn up to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.



During cross examination PW.1 deposed that there is no deficiency in service from the side of the opp.parties 1 and 2 and no relief is seeking from opp.parties 1 and 2.


We have carefully perused the complaint, affidavit, version of opp.parties 1 and 2 and documents. As no evidence is adduced from the side of opp.parties 3 and 4, we are constrained to reply upon the evidence of complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2. From the evidence and documents before us we are of the view that opp.parties 3 and 4 committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief.

In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties 3 and 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,990/- and 8,890/- to the complainant. Opp.parties 3 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost.

R.Muthukumar, S/o. M.Rajarathnam,

58, Bharathiyar road, Sri Ramapuram,

Pappanaiyakkanpalayam, Coimbatore --- Complainant

Vs.

The Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

68, West Ponnurangam Road, R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore 641 002. --- Opposite Party


ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to return the RC book of the vehicle, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the proceedings.



The case of the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant is earning his livelihood by working under a goldsmith, he is getting weekly wages from his owner. The opposite party has offered two wheeler vehicle loan for Rs.45,000 and the complainant accepted opposite party’s offer and availed vehicle of Rs.45,000 for his Bajaj Pulzar 150 UG2 ES bearing registration numbered TN 38 AC 6546purchased from Rydon Auto Pvt.Ltd. on 8.8.05. The complainant surrendered the RC book of his vehicle to the opposite party along with necessary papers duly signed by him as security for the above said loan amount.

2. The complainant during the first week of March 2008 he approached the opposite party with the proposal for the foreclosure of the vehicle loan. The opposite party accepted his proposal and advised to remit the sum of Rs.6126 for foreclosure of the loan amount and releasing the relevant documents regarding the vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.6126 in cash and same was acknowledged by opposite party’s receipt bearing No.9000021936 dt.3.3.08 towards foreclosure of the said vehicle loan. But after receiving the full amount towards foreclosure of the loan the opposite party has not returned the RC book of the vehicle.

3. Inspite of repeated demands and several reminders over phone and in person the opposite party has not taken any steps to return his RC book. Hence this complaint.

4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A4 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

5. This complainant is filed by the complainant praying this Forum to direct the opposite party to return the RC book of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 AC 6546 purchased on 8.5.05 availing loan from the opposite party.

6. The opposite party was served notice on 19.5.09 for the hearing, dt.4.6.09. The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

7. The case of the complainant is that even after foreclosure of the loan amount, the opposite arty has not returned the RC book. Ex.A1 is the cash receipt and Ex.A2 is the cash receipt for foreclosure and penal charges datd 3.3.08. As per this receipt the complainant has paid Rs.6156 ie. the full amount of the foreclosure of the loan. Ex.A3 is the legal notice sent to the opposite party claiming return of RC book along with compensation for mental agony. The notice was received by the opposite party and acknowledgement is filed by Ex.A4. But the opposite party has not even cared to reply in legal notice. The complainant has proved his case. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

8. In the result, we direct the opposite party to return the RC book of the vehicle bearing No.TN 38AC 6546 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order

D. Narasinga Rao, S/o Ram Murthy, D.No.51-11-9/1, Nakkavanipalem, P&T Colony Post, Visakhapatnam – 530 013.

… Complainant

1. The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, 1st Floor, D.No.49-24-2, Coastal Heights, Sankaramattam Road, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam -530 016.
2. The Manager, Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Peejay Plaza, CBM Compound, VIP Road, Visakhapatnam .

... Opposite Parties
: O R D E R :

a) To compensate the loss of Rs.16,990/-, which is cost of the Sony Handycam covered under the Insurance Policy along with interest and costs.

In brief the case of the complainant is:

1. That the complainant purchased Sony Handycam from Sai Balaji Enterprises (Sony World) with the help of finance extended by 1st opposite party and the same is covered by insurance policy issued by the 2nd opposite party vide policy No.OG-08-2001-99600000002, covering the risk of theft or fire. That the said camera was lost at Ramakrishna Beach, Visakhapatnam on 08-05-2008 and the same is registered before the SHO of III Town Policy Station, but it could not be traced. Complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party but it was repudiated. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice sent to opposite parties 1 and 2. 1st opposite party remained absent. Hence set exparte.

3. 2nd opposite party filed counter denying the complaint allegations. Further admitted that issuance of the policy with specific terms and conditions and it is liable to indemnify on satisfaction and fulfillment of the terms and conditions as set out in the policy and not otherwise. Further contended that the theft is excluded from the coverage of the policy since inception and only burglary and house breaking is covered under the terms of the policy. That the complainant failed to understand the difference between burglary, theft and missing item.

That the theft accompanied with violence or attempted violence, which in other terms in burglary or house breaking is covered under the policy and the theft is excluded, as such this opposite party cannot indemnify the loss. That the item lost was purely on account of negligence and forgetfulness of the complainant and there is no force or attempted force leading to loss as such this opposite party is absolved of its liability to indemnify the complainant. Thus pleaded that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

4. Complainant filed affidavit. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 are marked for the complainant. Opposite party filed affidavit. Ex.B.1 is marked. Heard both sides.

5. The point that arises for consideration is:

whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?

6. There is not dispute with regard to the complainant purchase of the Sony Handycam and the same is covered under policy. But the dispute is with regard to the theft is covered under the policy or not. The opposite party contends that the theft is excluded from the coverage of the policy since inception and only burglary and house breaking is covered under the terms of the policy the complainant failed to understand the difference between burglary, theft and missing item.

In support of their contest opposite party filed the policy of the complainant along with terms and conditions, wherein under condition No.3, Section -2 defines Fire & Burglary & Housebreaking cover for consumer durable / desk top personal computer / laptop – On the happening of any insured event as provided for hereunder arising during the policy period an notified as prescribed, the company will make payment as provided for under each cover but only up to the sum assured as specified in the schedule against each cover – A Burglary and Housebreaking – The Company will indemnify the Insured (BAFL)/Insured person(s) in respect of loss of or damage to the Consumer Durable / Desk Top Personal Computer / Lap Top specifically declared in the schedule for which finance has been provided by BAFL whilst contained in the Insured Premises (address given in the schedule) caused by actual or attempted Burglary or Housebreaking.

Specific Exclusions Applicable (Burglary and Housebreaking) – The Company shall not be liable for and no indemnity is available hereunder in respect of: any consequential losses, or any loss or damage caused by (i) actual or attempted Burglary and / or theft; where the insured or any member of the Insured’s Family is or is alleged to be concerned or implicated; (ii) to any other item other than that declared for insurance in the schedule (iii) theft or larceny where there is a forcible entry or exit into the premises.

The opposite party further in support of their contention filed a citation of Supreme Court of India Judgement, between United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal - 2004 NCJ 828 (SC) – wherein their lordship stated that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1) (g) – Deficiency in service – Insurance – Repudiation of claim on the ground that burglary did not took place – Definition of burglary in the insurance policy would be binding – Interpretation of terms of policy – An expression defined in the policy cannot be interpreted in terms of common law – Repudiation by giving the meaning as per policy is not deficiency.

That the complainant lost the disputed Sony Handycam purely on account of negligence and forgetfulness and there is no force or attempted force leading to loss as such this opposite party is absolved of its liability to indemnify the complainant. Thus we did not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the complainants claim. Accordingly this point is answered.

7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case both parties are directed to bear their own costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

Pothunuri Suryanarayana, S/o P.D.N. Sarma, Hindu, male,

Aged 33 yerars, LIC Agent, R/o Western St.,

Eluru, W.G. Dist., -- Complainant


1. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Rep, by its General Manager, Akurdi

Pune -411035


2. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Rep., by its Branch Manager.D.No.40-13-2

2nd Floor, Chandramoulipuram, Near Beng Circle

Vijayawada 520 019, Krishna Dist,


3. The Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Rep., by its Branch Manager

N.R.Pet, Eluru-534006, W.G. Dist., -- Opposite Parties

O R D E R

The complainant filed the present complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to issue Clearance certificate and to hand over his spare key of the vehicle deposited with them and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony besides costs of the complaint. The averments of the complaint in brief are that ;

2. The 1st opposite party is the General Manager of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., at Pune and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the Branch Offices which provides finance to the vehicles of Bajaj products. The complainant purchased a Bajaj Wind motor cycle on 24-5-2004 by invoking finance under 0% interest from the 2nd opposite party at Eluru since the Branch office (3rd opposite party at Eluru) was not yet established with customer proposal No.7167. Subsequently, the opposite parties have established their branch office (3rd opposite party ) at Eluru. The proposal of finance is to a tune of Rs.36,000/- and the complainant has to repay the same at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month in a total period of 24 months and having agreed to do so, the complainant fulfilled all the requirements such as paying document charges, issuing 24 post dated cheques and deposited the spare key of the vehicle to the opposite party.

Subsequently, the opposite parties encashed all the cheques except 4 cheques bearing Nos. 851111, 851114, 851115 and 851116. Later, the complainant approached the opposite parties 2 and 3 and paid balance amount of Rs.6000/- on 30-11-2006. Thus, he had paid the entire finance amount without any default. But the opposite parties neither returned the four cheques to him nor presented to the bank and so also not issued Clearance Certificate along with the deposited key to him inspite of repeated requests made by him.

Thereupon the complainant made a written report to the opposite parties on 30-1-2008 and so also got issued a legal notice to them on 5-3-2008 demanding them to issue Clearance Certificate along with the deposited key. The opposite parties having received the same ultimately kept quite without complying the demand made by the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The opposite parties filed their versions jointly contending that the complainant has paid all instalments dues but however one of the cheques issued by the complainant against 15th instalment is dishonoured due to the reason of “refer to drawer” and that as per the terms of the loan agreement, the complainant was charged penal interest for the delayed number of months comes to Rs.2,450/-.

It is further stated that inspite of the opposite parties not holding NOC/HP termination papers for want of penalty and in fact the opposite parties have already issued NOC/HP termination papers to the complainant on 23-5-2008 and further the opposite parties are ready to hand over the spare key to the complainant before this Forum as the complainant has not accepted the key earlier from the opposite parties and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with a direction to the complainant to make payment of Rs.2,450/-.

4. Thereafter the complainant in support of his claim filed his own affidavit and got marked Ex A.1 to Ex A.5. on the other hand, the opposite parties filed a common affidavit with the same contents mentioned in their version and got no documents marked.

5. The points for determination now are :

1) Whether the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite parties is made out ?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him ?

3) To what relief ?

POINT No: 1:

As per the very version and the affidavit filed by the opposite parties, there is no dispute about the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant for a sum of Rs.36,000/- financed by the 2nd opposite party and also about the complainant executing the hypothecation deed, depositing of 24 cheques each for Rs.1500/- and depositing the spare key. It is the case of the complainant that he cleared off the entire loan by 30-11-2006 but inspite of it, the opposite parties did not issue him the clearance certificate and also not returned his spare key deposited by him and as well as four unused cheques and therefore there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not doing so.

But finally the prayer of the complainant to this Forum is only to direct the opposite parties to issue Clearance Certificate and to return the spare key deposited by him with the 2nd opposite party. So, the dispute is only with regard to non-issuance of clearance certificate and non-returning of the spare key. As per the version and affidavit filed by the opposite parties, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has paid all instalments dues but however, there is a due of Rs.2,450/- towards penalty for the dishonour of the cheques issued by the complainant towards 15th instalment, but however, the opposite parties are not holding NOC/HP termination papers for want of said penalty from the complainant.

At another stage of their version and affidavit, they clearly stated that the opposite parties had already issued NOC/HP termination papers to the complainant on 23-5-2008. Except taking such a plea, the opposite parties did not produce any documentary proof or any positive material in that regard. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties are not issuing the clearance certificate and not returning spare key deposited by him inspite of his repeated requests orally and so also in writing.

If really there is any truth in the version of the opposite parties that they have already issued Clearance Certificate on 23-5-2008 itself, there is no need to the complainant for his addressing a letter in detail on 31-1-2008 to the 2nd opposite party as under Ex A.2 and so also issuance of a legal notice dt. 5-3-2008 as under ExA.3. As stated above, if there is any truth in the contention of the opposite parties, they ought to have given a suitable reply to the complainant. But admittedly, the opposite parties having received the written report Ex A.2 and the legal notice Ex A.3 failed to give any reply. So in one sense the non-issuance of any reply from the opposite parties amounts to an admission of the case of the complainant.

As far as the return of spare key is concerned, it is the specific case of the complainant that in spite of addressing letter Ex A.2 and issuing of legal notice ExA.3 for return of the spare key besides the other demand, the opposite parties did not comply his demand. On the other hand, as per version and the affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it is their contention that they are ready to hand over the spare key to the complainant before this Forum as the complainant has not accepted the said key earlier from the opposite parties. If such is the situation, the opposite parties ought to have taken some steps to do so. But they have not even made any attempt and not even tried to offer the key to the complainant or deposited the same into the Forum.

Therefore, the defence set up by the opposite parties that they are ready to hand over the key to the complainant before this Forum as the complainant has not accepted the said key earlier from this is only a cock and bull story invented by them to pose themselves that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Though it is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is having still due of Rs.2450/- towards penalty for the dishonour of the cheques issued by him for the 15th instalment, but at the same time they have clearly admitted in their affidavit that they are not holding NOC/HP termination papers for want of penalty.

That itself shows that the opposite parties are not much interested for the due amount of Rs.2450/-. Besides that the complainant in his letter Ex A.2 and the legal notice Ex A.3 clearly mentioned that on the advise of the 2nd opposite party itself, he paid the balance amount of Rs.6000/- on 30-11-2006 as under Ex A.1 receipt at the time when it was told to him that he need not pay the said penalty amount of Rs.2450/-. The same is not disputed by the opposite parties at anywhere either in their version and or in their affidavit. The opposite parties except taking such a plea that they have already issued NOC/HP termination papers to the complainant on 23-5-2008, ultimately failed to establish the same.

Likewise the opposite parties except taking a plea that they are ready to hand over the spare key to the complainant before this Forum as the complainant has not accepted the key earlier, failed to make such offer to the complainant before this Forum at least or not even file any scrap of paper to direct the complainant to receive the key from them. Hence, we hold that such acts on the part of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite parties are bound to issue the Clearance Certificate and to return the spare key to the complainant. The point is answered accordingly.

POINT No: 2;

In view of our finding given under Point No.1, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him besides some reasonable compensation and costs.

POINT NO: 3

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to issue Clearance Certificate and return the spare key relating to the vehicle in question to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards damages for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint

Thursday, the 6th day of August, 2009

Manikandan

S/o. P.V. Manickam,

15A, Thotta Salai,

Dongaliyur Road, Veerakeralam,

Coimbatore. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited,

Rep. by its Authorised person

68, West Ponnurangam Road,

Back side – Annamar Petrol Bunk,

Coimbatore – 641 002.

2. Bajaj Finance,

Rep. by its authorized Officer,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Akurdi, Pune – 411 035. ....Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 5.08.09 in the presence of Mr.Muruganandam, Ms. D.Kavitha and Ms. N. Banumathi, Advocates for complainant and the1st opposite party called absent set exparte. As per memo 2nd opposite party is exonerated and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.904/- which was wrongly withdrawn by the 1st opposite party along with 12% interest, to pay sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant on account of negligence and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties, and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant had purchased a two wheeler i.e.Bajaj Platina Alloy bearinegistration No. TN 37 AR 7429 under the H.P Agreement from the 1st opposite party. As per instruction given by the 1st opposite party, the complainant has insured his vehicle with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., under the Policy No. G 08999 H 80201699228 made the payment of Rs.722/- towards renewal of his Insurance policy, and the 1st opposite party received the amount and issued a receipt bearing No. 9000012895. On 2.02.2008 the act of the 1st opposite party came to light when the complainant went to withdraw the amount from his account through ATM for his urgent need. It was very shocked to the complainant that there was shortfall in his account.

2. On enquiry made by the complainant, he came to know that the blank cheque which had been given for security was allegedly presented to the bank to withdraw the amount. Accordingly the amount of Rs.904/- was withdrawn from the complainant’s account without the complainant’s knowledge by producing the cheque bearing No. 246384. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and asked about the cheque, the 1st opposite party replied that the said cheque was presented for the purpose of renewal of the Insurance. The complainant explained all the fact and requested the 1st opposite party to refund the Rs.904/- which was wrongly debited by the 1st opposite party from the complainant’s account for the purpose of renewal of his policy.

3. The opposite party gave an assurance that the amount would be adjusted for the next premium. On account of the assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant kept quiet and believing that the next premium will be renewed by the 1st opposite party. On 19.06.2008 the complainant received a letter from the 2nd opposite party demanding amount for renewal. The complainant took all the efforts to get back the amount which was illegally debited by the 1st opposite party from his account but all went in vein, hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the both opposite partyies on 11.12.2008, they received the same but neither sent a reply nor settle the amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A6 was marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties are remained absent and set exparte.



The point for consideration is



Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

5. The complainant had purchased a two wheeler i.e. Bajaj Platina alloy Regn.No. TN 37 AR 7429 under the HP Agreement from the opposite party and paid Rs.722/- towards renewal of his Insurance Policy, vide receipt No. 9000012895 Ex.A2 dated 30.08.2007. But in spite of it the opposite party has presented a cheque which was given by the complainant at the time of HP Agreement. Ex.A3 is the Statement of Account which shows on 1.04.08 the opposite party has with drawn Rs.904/- from the account of the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests and legal notice, the opposite party neither sent a reply nor settled the amount due to the complainant. The complainant has proved his case through documents. The 1st opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief from the 1st opposite party.



6. The 1st opposite party has received the notice on 14.5.09 for the hearing, dt.1.6.09 but he opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.


7. In the result, we direct the 1st opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.904/- which was wrongly withdrawn by the opposite party with interest @ 12% from 1.2.2008 to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Giri Raj son of Sh.Shobha Ram resident of village Nalhog, Post Office Baryara, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant





V/S



1. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited IIIrd floor Leela Bhavan

( Aparna) Khalini Shimla through its Manager.

2. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Mandi branch at Gutkar ,District Mandi, H.P. thought its Branch Manager









ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of motor cycle No. HP-33A-6724 which had been purchased from Malhotra Motors , Gutkar in the sum of Rs.38,540/- on 10th July,2006 .


The vehicle was financed by the opposite parties Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.14000/- was paid as margin money by the complainant and he had to repay the loan amount alongwith interest in 18 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1671/- each . The complainant had to pay back a sum of Rs. 30,078/- towards the loan of the vehicle. The complainant averred that he had paid all the 18 instalments of the vehicle loan at the rate of Rs.1671/- each. It has further been averred that 16 instalments were paid through cheque as is clear from the account statement and two instalments were made in cash as per receipts attached .


A sum of Rs.722/- has also been paid as insurance charges . The complainant alleged that after payment of the last instalment and clearance of the loan amount , he asked the opposite parties to supply the No objection certificate / no dues certificate with regard to the vehicle in question for getting removed the hypothecation entry from the registration certificate but the opposite parties lingered on the matter and then illegally started demanding Rs.2200/-.


The complainant further alleged that whole of the loan installments have been paid to the opposite parties and the demand of Rs.2200/- by the opposite parties is wrong, illegal and unwarranted and amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties . With these allegations the complaint had sought a direction to the opposite parties to provide the no objection certificate of vehicle. Apart from this a sum of Rs.50,000/- has also been claimed as compensation besides costs of complaint.



2 The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte.

3. We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record. The perusal of the record shows that complainant has purchased the vehicle and the same was financed from the opposite parties . As per the complainant , an amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid by him as margin money and he had to repay the loan amount in the sum of Rs.30,078/- in 18 instalments of Rs.1671/ each. The complainant had paid 16 instalments through cheque and two instalments have been paid in cash vide receipts dated 10-9-2008and 22-5-2009 Annexure C-4 and C-5, respectively.


The complainant in order to substantiate his case has also filed copy of the statement of accounts Annexure C-3 with respect to his account in Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi. Apart from this ,copies of receipts Annexure C-4 and C-5 have also been adduced in evidence. Not only this ,the complainant has supported the averments made in the complaint by means of his own affidavit .


On the other hand, the opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter except to admit the claim of the complainant. Therefore , in view of the entire evidence on record , we hold that the complainant has proved and established that he had repaid the entire loan amount to the opposite parties and nothing is due to be paid by him to the opposite parties .


Therefore , the demand of Rs.2200/- made by the opposite parties as the amount due in lieu of issuance of No dues certificate to the complainant is totally unfair and it amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Thus we are satisfied that the complainant has proved that the opposite parties had been deficient in providing service to the complainant and he is liable to be compensated on account of harassment apart from a direction for handing over the No dues certificate.

4 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to hand over the “ No dues certificate ” to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which to pay penalty of Rs.50 /- per day from the date of receipt of this order till the “no dues certificate” is handed over to him. In addition to this , the opposite

Mr. M. Sivagurunathan,

S/o. G. Murugan,

23, Indira Nagar,

Bye-Pass Road,

Old Sungam, Coimbatore – 45. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Rydon Auto Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Kalaikathir Building,

671, Avinashi Road,

Coimbatore – 641 037.

2. M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

No. 68, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002. -- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr. S.Sivashankar and Mrs. P.Shanmugamalar, Advocates for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to return the original R.C. Book of the vehicle TN 38 AS 9934 or to take back the vehicle and refund the total cost of the Rs.63,325/-, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and sufferings and to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The 1st opposite party is a dealer for Bajaj Vehicles and the 2nd opposite party is a financier. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party to purchase a motor cycle Bajaj Pulsar 150 and wanted some financial assistance. The 1st opposite party readily agreed to arrange for the same and introduced to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party also readily agreed to provide the required finance under hire purchase agreement.

2. After execution of necessary papers and payment of the initial amount, the opposite parties delivered the vehicle to the complainant by invoice No.2294 dt.18.3.08.The vehicle was registered and the registration No.of the vehicle was TN 38 AS 9934. The hire purchase instalments was for a period of 12 months and the loan amount was Rs.25,000 and monthly instalment of Rs.2500. After clearing the entire instalments, the complainant approached the opposite parties several times to get back the original RC book, H.P.termination papers and No objection papers but there has been no proper reply from the opposite parties.

3. The complainant had issued a legal notice to both the opposite parties on 21.5.09. The notice sent to 1st opposite party had been returned unserved as left. The 2nd opposite party had received the notice on 22.5.09 but there was no reply. The attitude and act of the opposite parties has resulted in hardship, monetary loss, physical strain and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

4. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A8 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

5. The case of the Complainant is that even after clearing the entire hire purchase instalment dues, the opposite parties is not returning the original RC book, H.P.termination papers and No objection papers to the complainant. Ex.A1 is the invoice, A2 is the copy of RC book and Ex.A3 is the insurance policy and A4 is the legal notice. The complainant has proved that the vehicle was purchased in his name. viz. Sivagurunathan and the entire hire purchase instalments has been paid in full. For this Xerox copy of Savings Book containing 3 passbooks is marked as Ex.A7. The opposite parties who are holding the documents ought to have delivered it on termination of the hire purchase agreement but failed to do so. Hence the act of the opposite parties is nothing but an unfair trade practice. The complainant has proved his case and the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

6. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to return the RC book, H.P.termination papers and no objection papers bearing vehicle No.TN 38 AS 9944 to the complainant and to pay Rs.15,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

FA.No.1486/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.3/2007 DISTRICT FORUM-II, TIRUPATI

Between:

1. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Akurdi, Pune, Mumbai Road,

Pune-411 035.

2. Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Renigunta, Tirupathi Main Road,

Over the Hyundai Show Room,

Tirupati, Chittoor District. Appellants/
Opp.parties 1 and 2

And



1. Sri K.Narayana Reddy,

S/o.K.Reddeppa Reddy,

Door No.7/360, Maratipalem,

Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. Respondent/

Complainant

2. Regional manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.608 and 209, 6th floor,

2nd Block, White House,

Begumpet, Hyderabad. Respondent

Opp.party No.3.



Counsel for the Appellants:M/s.V.Mohan Srinivas.



Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.K.Mohan Rami Reddy



QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER



MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand, Hon’ble Member).

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against whom the District Forum passed an order directing them to pay an amount of Rs.8,400/- with interest as also costs.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

The complainant purchased a two wheeler of Bajaj make for Rs.38,500/- from Bajaj dealer. He claimed to have paid Rs.3,000/- by way of down payment. In order to meet the cost of the vehicle, he seemed to have raised a loan of Rs.38,500/- from opposite party No.2. It appears to be local branch of opposite party no.1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.38,500/- and disbursed the amount to the dealer. The said loan amount was scheduled to be repaid in 24 equal instalments covering not only the principal amount but also interest at the flat rate of 9.9% for 24 months, the entire period over which the instalments were spread. This transaction took place in January, 2005. Subsequently, the said motor cycle was stolen on 19-4-2005. The complainant gave a police report and also made a claim with the insurance company impleading opposite party No.3. The insurance company processed the claim and ultimately issued a cheque for Rs.24,500/-. It seems the complainant presented the said cheque issued in the name of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 encashed the same. The insurance claim was finalized after a delay of 15 months but the complainant claimed to have paid instalments regularly all these 15 months with the fond hope that he would get back the insurance amount. Thus after the proceeds of the insurance claim were appropriated by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 sent a notice stating that still an amount of Rs.1,961/- was outstanding due from the complainant. The complainant on the other hand stated that he paid the instalments at the rate of Rs.1,940/- per month as also Rs.3,000/- down payment besides the insurance amount of Rs.24,500/-. Thus over and above the price of the vehicle, he paid an amount of Rs.11,400/- and as such the opposite parties were under an obligation to return the excess amount quantified at Rs.11,400/-. When the opposite parties did not comply with his demand in this behalf, he moved this complaint before the District Forum for the reliefs.

This claim came to be resisted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 on one hand and 3 on the other. Opposite party No.2 filed counter obviously on behalf of opposite party No.1 also contending that the date of theft was taken as the base date and in fact the EMI’s came to be arrived at by dividing the principal amount of Rs.38,500/- plus the interest component of Rs.7,710/- at the rate of 9.9% p.a. for two years and it received only Rs.24,500/- plus Rs.19,400/- only and thereby still an amount of Rs.1,961/- was outstanding due from the complainant and in that view of the matter the very claim is utterly untenable. It also disowned the receipt of Rs.3,000/- by way of down payment as it was made not to the financier but to the dealer. Thus in as much as nothing was due to the complainant from the financier and the actual facts were other way round, there is no case of deficiency in service much less any compensation etc. claimed over and above the so called excess.

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9. Opposite parties also filed an affidavit and relied upon Exs.B1 to B3.

On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was definitely entitled to Rs.8,400/- excluding the down payment and granted the relief accordingly.

The complaint against opposite party No.3 was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed the present appeal reiterating the very same grounds that were urged in the counter that were allegedly not taken into consideration by the District Forum. It also relied upon clause 18(d) of the hypothecation agreement enabling it not only to insist upon the payment of the entire principal amount but also the interest component as specifically agreed to between the parties even in the event of the theft of the vehicle. This according to the appellants was ignored by the District Forum without valid reasons.

Heard both sides.

The points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

2) To what relief?

The claim is comprised of Rs.3,000/- down payment and the so called excess paid by the complainant. As rightly contended by the appellants and rightly upheld by the District Forum, the financier has got nothing to do with that down payment and in that view of the matter, there is absolutely no evidence that the said amount was deposited with the financier as matching money. So what remained to be assailed in this appeal for the appellants was direction to pay Rs.8,400/-. This also according to the appellants was not correct in view of the provisions contained in 18(d) of the terms and conditions in Ex.B1. Clause 18(d) reads as follows:

18(d) If the product is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the company shall have the right to appropriate any insurance recovery towards payment of the entire balance of the sanctioned loan and other dues including the portion that would otherwise have been repayable in future. If after such appropriation, there may be any surplus left over, it shall be paid to the borrower. If there be any deficit, the borrower shall be liable to pay, the entire deficit forthwith. The company may however, in its discretion, permit the borrower to pay the deficit amount in readjusted EMIs. The company shall remain entitled to encash the post dated cheques referred to in article B until the deficit is fully paid up, whether the deficit is to be paid forthwith or in readjusted EMIs as stated above’.

Ex.B2, statement of account filed by the opposite parties is very much in tune with the hypothecation agreement, more particularly, clause 18(d). Even in case the vehicle was stolen though the complainant was entitled to the insurance coverage, it does not absolve him from making payment of the interest component as still in advance in as much as the provisions of clause 18(d) in Ex.B1 ensure such payment in favour of the financier. There is absolutely no material to alter the said terms and conditions of the agreement by either the complainant or for that matter even by the District Forum. The contract has a certain amount of sanctity and it can be undone only on proof of some vitiating elements as fraud, coercion, undue influence and the terms being un-consciousable. But it is nobody’s case either that the provisions of Usurious Laws Act are attracted in the matter. In these circumstances, the contract stands out unscathed by any lawful circumstance that would warrant alternative construction of the contract. If one goes by the terms of the contract, Ex.B2, account statement cannot be challenged. Ex.B2 clearly fortifies the stand of the opposite parties that it was the complainant that owes money to the financier but not the other way round. When such is the case and when the discussion leads to such conclusion, it takes us to the fact that the order turned out to be unsustainable. Thus the above discussion clearly demonstrates that there are good grounds to over turn the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside resultantly dismissing the complaint but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/108

P. A. Muhammed, S/o Abdulla (Late), Pottamcholayil House, Meenangadi (P.O), Chendakkuni, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager, KVR Motors, Opposite State Bank of India, Kalpetta North.

Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Chakkorathukulam, Kannur Road, Kozhikode.

Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Chakkorathukulam, Kannur Road, Kozhikode.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE
2. SAJI MATHEW


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Pickup Goods Autorikshaw from the 1st Opposite Party in the year 2007. They themselves financed Rs.1,00,000/- for the vehicle and the balance was paid in cash by the Complainant. The Complainant was duly paying the monthly instalments of Rs.3,517/- at the Kalpetta branch of Panjab National Bank. Altogether 34 instalments were paid and 4 instalments are yet to be paid. The original R.C Book was at the custody of Opposite Parties and they agreed to return the same when half of the instalments were paid. The 1st Opposite Party has produced the R.C for the purpose of remitting taxes for the year 2008 and 2009. Then in January 2009 the Complainant requested for the R.C book for obtaining the fitness certificate for the vehicle. The Opposite Party evaded the request of the Complainant even after a lawyer notice to that effect. The Complainant could not ply the vehicle without obtaining the fitness certificate. The complainant was getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- from the vehicle and this was the only means of subsistence of the Complainant and his family. The Complainant has sustained loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant therefore prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to return the R.C book of the vehicle KL 12C 7690 and to pay all the expense for obtaining the fitness certificate. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- for the loss sustained by him.

2. The 1st Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The 2nd Opposite Party was set exparte. The 1st Opposite Party in their version stated that they have no role in arranging the finance for the vehicle. If the Complainant has entrusted the original R.C with Opposite Party No.2, at the times of financing, the 1st Opposite Party is not responsible for that. The allegation that the 1st Opposite Party had arranged for the payment of tax is not correct. So, the 1st Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

3. The matters to be decided are:- 1.
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2.

Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?
4. Point No.1:- Here the allegation of the Complainant is that the original R.C book was retained by the Opposite Parties at the time of financing. The Complainant could not take fitness certificate for the vehicle, in the absence of original R.C book. Without fitness certificate he is keeping his vehicle idle and sustaining loss.

5. The Complainant's requirement is to get possession of the original R.C book. It is very known practice of the financial companies and their agencies to keep the R.C book of the vehicle for which they advance finance. This practice cannot be justified for any reason. The real owner is the registered owner and R.C holder. Financing is endorsed in the R.C book and the R.C owner cannot exchange or sell the vehicle without getting the NOC and canceling the loan endorsement. So, there is no reason or justification for the Opposite Parties to keep the R.C of the financed vehicle. In this case, 1st Opposite Party says that they have no relation with 2nd Opposite Party even though address shown on the cash receipts (Ext.A2 series) show that both parties can have comfortable functioning zone together. 2nd Opposite Party has not appeared or filed version. So, the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have retained the original R.C book of the Complainant stands unrebutted. Hence the point No.1 is decided against the Opposite Parties.



6. Point No.2:- Here the 1st Opposite Party has appeared and filed version that the R.C book of the Complainant is not with them. The cash receipts Ext.A2 series shows that financing is done by the 2nd Opposite Party. They are set exparte and the allegations of the Complained stands true as against the 2nd Opposite Party. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief from the 2nd Opposite Party.




Therefore, the 2nd Opposite Party is directed to release the R.C book of the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The 2nd Opposite Party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party is also directed to pay an interest at rate of 10% on the amount from the date of this order till payment.

COMPLAINT NO.2243 OF 2009

T.J.Brammadeva,

S/o Late T.J.Jwalappa,

A/a 48 yrs, No.298, 1st main

Road, 7th Cut-Road,

Panchasilanagar, Mudalapalya,

Bangalore – 72.

…. Complainant.

V/s

The Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

No.29, 1st Main Road,

Anugraha Building,

Sudindranagar,

P.G.Halli Main Road,

Malleshwaram,

Bangalore – 560 003.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed seeking direction to the Opposite Party to return the registration certificate and to pay Rs.55,300/- on the following grounds:-

2. The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 12/12/2006 and Rs.15,000/- on 17/01/2007 to M/s KHIVRAJ MOTORS towards purchase of Goods carrier bearing No.KA:41-3313. Since the fitness certificate of the vehicle expired on 23/01/2009, he approached the Regional Transport Officer for renewal of the same. But the said authority required NOC from BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE. Accordingly he addressed a letter dated 30/01/2009 to the Opposite Party to issue NOC, but the same was not issued. On 26/07/2007 he addressed a letter to the Opposite Party stating that due to financial difficulties, he is unable to pay the installments regularly and therefore requested for grant of some time, but the same was also not considered. As a result, he suffered financial loss. Hence, the complaint.

3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant has availed finance facility of Rs.98,000/- from the Opposite Party for the purchase of three wheeler goods carrier and out of the loan amount the complainant purchased the vehicle bearing No.KA:41-3313. The complainant has executed several documents with regard to repayment of the loan amount and has agreed to repay the loan in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.3,441/- commencing from 15/02/2007 to 15/01/2010. Punctual payment of each and every installment is the essence of the finance agreement. There is an outstanding of Rs.1,71,781/-, apart from future installment of Rs.10,323/- in the loan account of the complainant as per the statement dated 30/10/2009. Since from the beginning, the complainant has become chronic defaulter in payment of the agreed installments. As such the Opposite Party cannot issue any type of NOC on the vehicle in question either to cancel the hypothecation entry or to get fitness certificate. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits and have filed written arguments.

5. The points for consideration are:-



1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our findings to both points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. In the version it is contended by the Opposite Party that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.98,000/- for the purchase of the vehicle bearing No.KA:41-3313. It is alleged that from the very beginning the complainant is a chronic defaulter and is still due Rs.1,71,781/- besides future installments of Rs.10,353/-. In the complaint except stating that the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 12/12/2006 and Rs.15,000/- on 17/01/2007, there is no mention that the complainant has cleared the entire loan availed from the Opposite Party. If the complainant is due the amount as stated in the version he cannot seek return of the registration certificate from the Opposite Party. From the endorsement dated 28/01/2009 issued by the RTO it is made out that the complainant has applied for duplicate copy of registration certificate pertaining to the vehicle and thereupon the RTO directed the complainant to obtain NOC from the financer. In the complaint, the complainant has tried to make it appear that he had applied to the RTO for renewal of the fitness certificate, but from the endorsement issued by the RTO it is seen that he had applied for duplicate copy of the registration certificate. Without clearing the loan amount with the financier, the complainant cannot seek return of the document deposited with the financier. If the complainant has not cleared the loan amount as stated in the version, he cannot be heard to say that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service. Thus, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

C. C. No. 237 OF 2009.
Date of filing: 01.12.2009.

Between :

G.V.R. Anjaneyulu, S/o Suryanarayana, Advocate, Resident of Door No.54-18-67, Plot No.14, L.I.C. Colony, Vijayawada.

..… Complainant.

And
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Rep: by its Branch Manager, Door No.40-13-2, 2nd Floor, Chandramoulipuram, Near Benz Circle, Vijayawada - 10.

….. Opposite Party.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 19.01..2010 in the presence of Sri K. Satyanarayana Rao, advocate for complainant, and opposite party remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following :

O R D E R

This complaint is under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
Complainant is the owner of Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 BA 0722 and he availed finance from the opposite party and he has to discharge the same in monthly instalments at Rs.1,675/-. The opposite party took the documents including post dated cheques, duplicate key and hypothecation etc., including two pro-notes. Later the complainant paid all the instalments. After complete payment of the loan he approached the personnel of the opposite party for return of the unused cheques, pro-notes, duplicate key etc., but the opposite party postponed for return of the documents with one pretext or the other. Finally the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party on 16.11.2009, though received the opposite party neither replied nor complied the demand of the complainant and thereby the opposite party made the complainant to move from pillar to post and thereby he suffered monitory loss and mental agony. As all the efforts of the complainant became futile in getting back the documents hence, the complaint.


2. After registering the complaint notice was sent to the opposite party who received it but failed to contest though taken sufficient time.

3. Complainant filed affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

4. Heard and perused.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?


6. Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler bearing No. AP 16 BA 0722 vide Ex.A1 and A7. He also paid life tax and he admitted that he availed finance from the opposite party and paid. Ex.A6 is clear that the complainant paid 24 instalments ofcourse there is error message what ever it may be but there is no material on hand that the complainant has not paid any instalment was in due of any instalment as such the plea of the complainant is acceptable and accepted. Further, the complainant addressed a letter under the original of Ex.A2 wherein the recitals are very clear that he paid the entire amount that was not denied by the opposite party again the complainant addressed a letter though received the opposite party vide Ex.A5 but they failed to comply and reply that itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further as already noted supra there is no any due or to say that the complainant was in due of some amount and without ioto of proof the opposite party has no right to keep the documents pertaining to the complainant with them which act of the opposite party falls with in the purview of deficiency/negligence on the part of the opposite party. Further, the opposite party violated the principles of natural justice and so they are liable to pay the damages also since the complainant proved the deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite party and so this point is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is hereby directed to return all the documents to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and do pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards mental agony and do pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only towards costs. Rest of the claim if any claimed by the complainant are rejected.

Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of January, 2010.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/178

Saju Karunakaran
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The Manager
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq
2. P.P.Shymaladevi
3. P.Ramadevi


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

D.o.F: 5/8/09
D.o.O:1/1/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.178/09

Dated this, the 1st day of January 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER

Saju Karunakaran,

S/o Karunakaran, : Complainant

3/474 Malankunnu, Po.Bekal,

Kasaragod Dt.

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,

3rd Floor, KVR Building,Kannur., : Opposite party

(Ex-parte)

ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER


The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 60.A/924 from Zain Motors on 24/8/2008. The vehicle was purchased with the financial aid of the opposite party, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,Kannur. As per the oral agreement between the complainant and the opposite party that up to the date of clearance of the loan amount the original R.C and the extra key are to be kept with the Bajaj Auto Finance. After clearing the entire debt the complainant demanded to return back the original R.C, Extra key and No objection letter to change the ownership after canceling the HP endorsement from the R.C . But the opposite party did not issue the documents and give back the R.C. Then the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party. Though it was served opposite party neither complied the demands nor sent any reply. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.

2. On receipt of notice, a counsel was represented for opposite party but later not turned up to file version and contest the matter. Hence opposite party was set exparte.

3. Now the points arises for consideration are whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so what is the order as to costs and compensation?

4. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1, the father of the complainant who has been authorized to depose the case and Exts.A1 & A2 documents. Ext.A1 is the notice demanding the original R.C, No objection certificate, and extra key in respect of the motor cycle. Ext.A2 is the reminder letter to Ext.A1. During the course of evidence PW1 deposed that after filing this complaint, the opposite party returned the original R.Conly but not the extra key and N.O.C to transfer the vehicle. According to PW1, due to the non availability of the said documents the complainant could not sell the vehicle. Now on passage of time the value of the vehicle is diminished. Hence he will sustain loss. It is evident from the records as well as from the deposition of PW1 that the opposite party has not taken much care to return the documents. There is no contra evidence adduced by the opposite party . It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to return the documents and NOC after getting the entire loan amount. But here the opposite party failed to do so. The complainant’s specific case is that he cannot sell the vehicle without documents. Hence he constrained to file this complaint after sending reminders to the opposite party. After considering the above discussions the forum is of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Hence, we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to issue H.P. termination letter, No objection Certificate and extra key in respect of the Bajaj Pulsor Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 60A/924 and also pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of these proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which on application by the complainant necessary directions will be issued to the concerned registering authority to cancel the H.P. endorsement from the R.C book of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 60A /924.

Hello,

I had purchase a washing machine on a monthly base loans (EMI) Though according to the calculations my EMI'S are over but still the authorities are not concerned to send me the details neither they are picking up my call, if any of the concerned person is reading this mail pls be kind enough to reply me on rq1972@yahoo.com. Because this is very embarrasing that being so reputed company, staff's like you are spoiling the image of it.