BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA.No.1334/2008 against CC.No.751/2007 District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.



Between:



Divakar Rao Lingam, S/o.late Mohan Rao,

Hindu, Aged: 30 years,

G-4, Madhuban Heights, Near Mahalaxmi Temple, 7th Street,

Vidyut Colony, Rajahmundry – 533 103.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

The Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd

C/o.Varun Motors, Varsha, D.No.10-50-22/1, Siripuram,

Visakhapatnam – 03.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.



For the Appellant : Mr.Divakar Rao, party-in-person.

For the Respondent : Admn.stage.



QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1. The appellant, who was the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum, having preferred the appeal did not choose to appear and advance arguments for admission before this Commission. In the circumstances, we have perused the record and we are of the opinion that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he availed a loan of Rs.34,000/- for purchasing a Motor Cycle from the respondent payable in 18 equal monthly instalments at Rs.2,170/-. Accordingly the vehicle was released. The vehicle was hypothecated to the respondent for which it had kept original registration certificate as well as additional key. He paid 16 EMIs out of 18 EMIs, and although he sought to pay the remaining two EMIs, the respondent did not agree for his proposal and threatened that he would not issue ‘No Objection Certificate’. Therefore, he prayed that the original registration certificate and additional key be returned to him besides issuance of no objection certificates.

3. The respondent resisted the case. While admitting that he borrowed loan repayable with interest in equal monthly instalments, and the post dated cheques issued by the complainant for instalments 2.7.11.13 and 18, were dishonoured and that he had to pay cheque bounce charges besides penal charges amounting to Rs.5,677/- unless and until he paid the amount, he was not entitled for no objection certificate. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.5 marked, while the opposite party got Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked.

5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was still due an amount of Rs.5,667/- and till such time the amount was paid he was not entitled to registration certificate as well as key besides no objection certificate.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum ought to have seen that an amount of Rs.6,633/- was sent by way of cheque dt.30.08.2007 towards full and final settlement and therefore, the appeal be allowed.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle by availing loan of Rs.34,000/- from the respondent payable in equal monthly instalments. While the complainant asserts that he had paid the amount, the respondent alleges that still an amount of Rs.5,677/- was due, evidence under statement of account marked as Ex.B.2. The complainant alleges that the copy of statement of account cannot be taken exfacie evidence of the correctness of the account. We may state herein that the complainant could not show where the respondent went wrong in calculating the amount due by him. The allegation that certain cheques were bounced and he had to pay penal charges, etc. was not denied. The complainant could not show that he had paid excess amount to the respondent. The amount that was paid by cheque was not received towards full and final settlement. There is no proof that the said amount was taken towards full satisfaction. Since the complainant still due some amount, necessarily the respondent was not obliged to issue no objection certificate besides registration certificate and additional key. We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts by the District Forum in this regard. We do not any merits in the appeal.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.



PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER

Dt:02.03.2009.

Complaint is filed on 08-09-2009

Compliant disposed on 13-03-2009

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

::AT:: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: KUM.G.V.N.R. BHANUMATHI, M.A. B.L.

I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & PRESIDENT (F.A.C.)

SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.B., MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE

CONSUMER complaint NO. 118 OF 2008

Between:
Rapaka Prem Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah, age 22 years, R/o. H. No. 4-69, Veldhi village of Manakondur mandal of Karimnagar district.

…Complainant.

AND

1. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., 1st Floor, Business Chambers, Hyderabad Road, Kothi Rampur, Karimnagar.
2. Anji Reddy, S/o. Not Known, age 35 years, Occ: Recovery Officer, R/o. H.No.10-4-15(New), 10-4-84/1, (old), Vavilalapally, Karimnagar.
3. S.A. Shahed, S/o. Not Known, age major, Occ: Proprietor Royal Motors Auto consultancy, Shop. No. 3-1-70, Opp: Inspection Banglow,
C.V.R.N. Road, Karimnagar.

…Opposite Parties.

This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 4-3-2009, in the presence of Sri. G. Srinivas Goud, Advocate for the complainant, and opposite party no.1 and 2 remained exparte, and Sri Md. Javeed Hussain, Advocate for opposite party no.3, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

::ORDER::

1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 to receive the 8 installments amount and deliver possession of Bajaj CT -100 DL X bearing no. AP 15-AA-4852 to the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant obtained loan from the opposite party no.1 under account no.1531 for purchase of Bajaj CT-100 DL X bearing no. AP 15-AA-4852 on 30.8.2005 and agreed to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly installments @ Rs.1,460/- per month. The complainant paid regularly the 28 monthly installments till December 2007 and thereafter to eak out his livelihood he went to Nirmal in Adilabad district. In the month of March 2008 and in absence of the complainant, the opposite party without issuing any notice had taken away the vehicle from the house of the complainant. Immediately after receiving the information the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 & 2 and agreed to pay the entire 8 remaining installments amount @ 1,460/- per month. The opposite parties 1 & 2 postponed the matter and did not return the vehicle stating that it is in possession of consultancy office, opposite party no.3 and promised to return the vehicle to the complainant. On 17.7.2008 the complainant demanded the opposite parties no.1 & 2 to return the vehicle to them and on their failure to do so, the complainant had got issued legal notice through his advocate on 29.7.2008. The opposite party no.1 received the notice and kept quiet. The opposite party no.2 having knowledge of the notice managed the postal authorities and returned the same as unclaimed. The complainant came to know through opposite party no.3 that the opposite party no.1 & 2 are making efforts to sell the vehicle and if the opposite parties succeeded in their effort, the complainant would be put huge loss and mental agony leading to multiplicity of proceedings for recovery of the vehicle. The complainant is ready to deposit the 8 remaining monthly installments before this Forum for return of his vehicle. The complainant suffered mental agony and monitory loss for visiting opposite parties on each and every occasion they promised to return the vehicle to him. Hence, this complaint.

3. The opposite party no.1 has filed written submissions stating that the complainant entered into agreement with them and availed finance of Rs.39,959/- for the purchase of Bajaj CT -100 DL X bearing no. AP 15-AA-4852. The monthly installment is Rs.1,460/- and interest @ 10.50% per annum. Further it is stated that Clause 20 C of the agreement states that in case of default committed by the complainant the opposite party no.1 within 15 days of demand there are, entitled to take possession of the vehicle and sell the same, or give on hire without being liable for any loss and to apply the sale proceeds towards satisfaction the costs incurred and thereafter towards liquidation of the balance of the interest and then towards the principal amount of the sanctioned loan outstanding. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 and on the other hand the cheques issued by the complainant against installment nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 13 to 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 30 are dishonoured due to reason of insufficient funds. As there was default in payment of installments due, the opposite party as per the terms of the agreement has charged penal interest for delayed number of months which comes to Rs.8,650/-. On 29.2.2008 the vehicle was seized and at the time of seizure of the vehicle the complainant was in arrears of Rs.14,490/- (Rs.5,840/- towards installment arrears and Rs.8650/- towards penal charges). The complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle and it was seized absolutely in peaceful manner. After seizure of the vehicle the complainant has not paid the arrears inspite of continuous follow-up and reminders and as such the vehicle was sold on 22.3.2008 for highest bidder price of Rs. 17,000/-. Even after sale of the vehicle there is loss of Rs.10,698/- which the complainant has to make good. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. The opposite party no.3 has filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable and that he has been running Auto Consultancy business. Opposite party no.1 offered to sell the vehicle to the opposite party no.3. By paying the consideration to the opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.2 purchased the vehicle on 22.3.2008 and sold the same on 25.3.2008 to one Linga Reddy R/o. Jagitial and the vehicle at present is in possession of Linga Reddy. The complainant is a stranger and he never approached the opposite party no.3. The complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit. The documents filed on his behalf are marked as Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the office copy of Legal Notice. Ex.A2 & A3 are postal receipts. Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of Insurance Cover Note and Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of Insurance Policy for the period from 30.8.2005 to 29.8.2006.

6. The documents filed by opposite parties are marked as Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the copy of Statement of Account. Ex.B2 is the authorization letter. Ex.B3 is the Statement of Loss/Surplus after sale of the vehicle.

7. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, is so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant entered into hypothecation agreement with the opposite party no.1 for the purchase of Bajaj CT -100 DL X bearing no. AP 15-AA-4852. The monthly installments to be paid is of 36 months @ Rs.1,460/- per month. The complainant states that he had paid 28 monthly installments. The opposite party no.1 has stated the complainant has paid 26 monthly installments and the cheques issued by the complainant against installments nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 13 to 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 30 are dishonoured due to reason of insufficient funds. Ex.B1 Statement of Account shows the fact of dishonour of 20 cheques issued by the complainant and payment made by the complainant in cash in lieu of the amount covered under the dishonoured cheques besides the amount paid through the rest of the cheques. Thus a total no. of 26 installments was paid by the complainant to the opposite party no.1. The admitted amount due as stated by the opposite party no.1 is Rs.5,840/- towards installments arrears and Rs.8,650/- towards penal charges. Both parties have admitted that there were installments arrears. So far as the question of penal charges is concerned the opposite party who is the custodian of the finance agreement has not placed the same on record to support their claim of penal charges of Rs.8,650/-.

9. The complainant has stated that his vehicle was seized in the month of March 2008 by the opposite party no.1 & 2 without issuing any notice to him and when he was in Nirmal of Adilabad district, away from his house. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the seizure as such affected by the opposite party no.1 is illegal and the complainant suffered loss due to the unlawful seizure of the vehicle. The opposite party no.1 states that the vehicle was seized on 29.2.2008 and the complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle as there was default in payment of dues. It is not denied by the opposite parties that the complainant was residing at Nirmal in Adilabad district to eak out his livelihood and the same is supported by Ex.A1 Legal Notice. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 have not filed any documentary evidence to show that the complainant surrendered the vehicle for the default committed in payment of installments. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 have not stated as to the manner of seizure and there has not been any seizure Panchanama of the vehicle All these facts make it clear that the seizue of the vehicle was not made in lawful manner. However, the fact remains that the complainant is a defaulter and being a defaulter how he is entitled to the relief claimed for, has to established by him.

10. It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 & 2 have seized the vehicle and they have been making efforts to sell the vehicle to others and immediately after receiving information of seizure of the vehicle the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 & 2 stating that he was ready to pay the arrears and the opposite party no.1 & 2 did not return the vehicle stating that the same was in possession of opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 in his counter, has stated he had purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and sold the same on 25.3.2008 to Linga Reddy R/o. Jagitial and the vehicle is in possession of the Linga Reddy. The complaint is filed for possession of the Motor Cycle which has been sold to the opposite party no.3 and who in turn disposed of it to Linga Reddy. Therefore, the complaint becomes in fructuous.

11. Admittedly the complainant was in arrears of monthly installments and as a result of default committed by him in payment of the amount due, the opposite party no.1 & 2 had seized the vehicle and sold the same for realisation of the arrears. The counsel for the complainant contended that the III party affidavits of Repaka Rajitha, Polu Mallesham and Ellandula Laxman filed by him are sufficient to establish that he paid some more amounts towards installments and also the vehicle is illegally taken away from his custody. Any how no prudent man keep will quiet without obtaining any acknowledgements for payment of installments by him. It appears that the complainant did not demand for any acknowledgement said to be paid by him before filing the complaint. Further the Statement of Account Ex.B1 is suggesting that several cheques issued by the complainant towards payment of installments were dishonoured which shows that he was never diligent in payment of installments as agreed upon. The complainant being a defaulter and having not taken proper steps immediately after seizure of the vehicle which according to him was made in the month of March 2008, he is not entitled to claim compensation and it cannot be said that there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 & 2. If the seizure of the vehicle is illegal, the complainant can seek relief for the same in the appropriate Forum. The counsel for the complainant relied on decisions reported in (1) III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case between CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD VS S.VIJAYALAXMI, (2) III (2008) CPJ 65 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case between TATA FINANCE LTD VS FRANCIS SOEIRO.

12. We have carefully perused the judgments but the facts and circumstances of the said cases are not applicable to the facts of this case, as in the case of the complainant there is voluminous material to prove that he is not prudent in payment of installments. Hence the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The amount deposited by the complainant in I.A.No. 299 of 2008 for 8th monthly installments shall be refunded to them.

12. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs. The office is directed to pay, on application made by the complainant, an amount of Rs. 11,680/- deposited by him in pursuance of order in I.A.No.299 of 2008

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 13th day of March, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the office copy of Legal Notice.
Ex.A2 & A3 are postal receipts.
Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of Insurance Cover Note
Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of Insurance Policy.

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the copy of Statement of Account.
Ex.B2 is the authorization letter.
Ex.B3 is the Statement of Loss/Surplus after sale of the vehicle.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 26th day of March, 2009

Present:- Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B.,

Sr.Member-cum-I/c President

Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

C.C.No. 11 Of 2009



Between:-

Padmma Narender S/o P.Ramulu, Age 42 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.8-1-10/2, Teachers colony, Mahabubnagar.

… Complainant

And

1.The Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited, C/o Padmini Bajaj, Mettugadda, Pillalamari Road, Mahabubnagar.

2.The Area Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd., D.No.12-13-1284,
4th floor, Maspack House, Above Spencer’s Market, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017.

… Opposite parties



This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 23.3.2009 in the presence of Sri N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

( Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, I/c President)

1.This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to issue NOC to the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant apart from the costs of the proceedings.

2. The complaint averments are as follows:- The OP.No.2 is a Financier represented by its Area Manager. The complainant has intended to purchase motor bike i.e., Bajaj C.T.100 DLX. That the complainant approached OP.No.1 for finance. That OP.No.1 after due verification of the documents, sent the same for approval of the finance to OP.No.2. That OP.No.2 sanctioned loan. That the complainant and the opposite parties enter into an agreement on 2-6-2006 and on the same date the opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs.34,500/- to the complainant. That the opposite parties also charged Rs.6,900/- towards document charges. That the opposite parties fixed EMI Rs.1725/- per month for a period of 24 months. That the complainant cleared entire loan amount on 14-11-2008 and requested to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC). That the opposite parties promised to issue NOC on 21-11-2008. That the opposite parties have failed to issue NOC on the said date but they are making the complainant roamed around their office but they postponed the issuance of NOC to the complainant on one or other pretext. That the opposite party renders defective service and adopted unfair trade practice. At this juncture there is no other option is left, except to knock the doors of this Hon’ble Forum for getting legal remedy. That the cause of action arose on 14-11-2008 when the complainant cleared the entire payment and on 21-11-2008 when the opposite parties failed to issue NOC to the complainant as per their promise, even after clearing the entire loan amount and every other day when the complainant roamed around the office of the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to issue NOC. Therefore the opposite parties may be directed to issue NOC to the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant apart from the costs of the proceedings. Hence the complaint.

3.The opposite parties filed counter with the following averments:- It is true that the complainant has entered into Loan Agreement No.551/5114 on 2.6.2006 and availed finance of Rs.34,500/- for the purchase of Bajaj C.T.100 DLX. The monthly installment to be paid per month is Rs.1,725/-. The contract period is of 24 months and rate of interest is 9.99% p.a. (Flat). It is denied that the opposite parties promised to issue NOC on 21.11.2008 and the OPs failed to issue NOC and postponing the same in favour of complainant on one or other pretext. The contract is completed on 14th November, 2008 whereas it is imperative to state that RC book and 2nd key of the vehicle in question was issued by OPs to the complainant on 10.11.2008 itself i.e., even before completion of the contract period. The OPs submit with regard to issue of NOC that the track record of the complainant is not good and the cheques issued by the complainant towards installment Nos.7, 8, 11 to 24 got dishonoured with a reason of ‘Insufficient Funds’ as such before issuing of NOC, OPs are required to verify the credit against each and every cheque and then only NOC will be issued. In order to verify the credit of some of the cheques the OPs have requested the complainant to produce copy of his Bank Pass Book but the complainant refused to do so at initial stage and submitted the same at later stage. The OP without waiting for complainant’s pass book, by verifying its own record issued NOC on 13th January, 2009. Thus there is delay of hardly one and half month which, due to verify of the books of accounts. The OP handed over the RC book and 2nd key to the complainant on 10.11.2008 and the complainant personally approached the OP and received NOC on 13.1.2009 before filing the complaint itself. As such there is no deficiency of service by the OPs. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20.

5.The OPs filed affidavit and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

6. The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

7. The case of the complainant is that he availed loan from OP and paid entire loan amount as per H.P. Agreement. The OP issued RC book and second key of the loan vehicle but whereas the OP not issued NOC. Not issuing of NOC even after completion of loan tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence the complainant is entitled for NOC and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

On the other hand the OP contended that it is true that the complainant availed loan and made it clear. The OP already issued RC book and second key of the vehicle and also NOC. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of loan by the complainant. Admittedly the complainant repaid entire loan amount. According to OP they have issued NOC on 13.1.2009 itself under due acknowledgement vide Exs.B-1 and B-2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the acknowledgement under Exs.B-1 & B-2 is pertaining to receipt of RC book and second key of the loan vehicle but not of NOC. The said documents did not reveal the purpose of signature. There is no mentioning in Exs.B-1 and B-2 that the complainant received NOC. There is no material before us to show that the OP issued NOC to the complainant. Not issuing NOC even after clearing the loan amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore we are of the opinion that the OP is liable to issue NOC to the complainant.

9. With regard to award of compensation the complainant has not filed any material evidence in support of his claim. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any lumpsum as compensation. However we feel it is proper to award costs of the proceedings as the complainant filed complaint by spending court fee. In our opinion Rs.500/- is reasonable amount to award towards costs of the proceedings.

10. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to issue NOC pertaining to Loan Agreement No.551/5114 and also pay Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

CONSUMER CASE NO.33/09

Between:
Sri Kurada Satyanarayana Patnaikl, S/o late Ramam, Hindu, aged 40 years, Plot No.84, Pynapil Colony, Chinagadili Mandalam, Sri Krishnapuram Post, Visakhapatnam. ….. Complainant.
A n d:
The Recovery Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, 1st floor, D.No.49-24-2, Coastel Heights, Sankaramatam Road, Madhurangar, Visakhapatnam-16.
…. Opposite Party.

This case coming on 25-02-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Sasank and Sri B.V.Ramana, Advocates for the Complainant, and Opposite Party was set exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
O R D E R

1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party:
a)To return the blank signed cheques 4 in number to the Complainant,
b)To pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant,
c)To pay costs, and
d)For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
In Brief the case of the complainant is:


2. That he purchased AP 31 AL 93 Bajaj CD 100 DLX two wheeler by availing finance from the finance wing of the Bajaj Company. The Opposite Party received cash of Rs.1475/- towards first installment. He fixed 35 installments at the above rate of Rs.1475/- and obtained 35 signed cheques from the Complainant. Accordingly, the Opposite Party realized on 31 cheques. In spite of Complainant reminding the Opposite Party on the failure to present the remaining four cheques, the said cheques were not presented to the bank. Subsequently, during November, 2008 recovery agent of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant, humiliated and insulted him by using foul words, demanding payment on the four cheques. The Complainant requested to issue a letter of authorization for payment of the amount covered by the four cheques which were stated to have been lost. But neither the said four cheques were presented nor a letter of authorization for payment was given by the Opposite Party in spite of a legal notice, got issued by the Complainant. The Opposite Party is threatening to repossess the said vehicle illegally.


3. The Opposite Party received notice but did not choose to contest. He was called absent and set exparte. The Complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A8. Perused the affidavit and documents. Heard the learned counsel for Complainant. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?


4. Ex.A1 is receipt dated 28-11-2007 for Rs.1575/- (Rs.1475 + Rs.100) in favour of Complainant issued by Bajaj Finance. Ex.A4 customer statement as on 22-4-2008 which reveals, the Complainant has deposited the installments regularly from 18-10-2005 until 18-4-2008. It shows the unpaid installments are 4 in number if taken into consideration of the advance equated monthly installment of Rs.1475/-. The reason for non payment of the above four installments is failure to deposit the cheques by Opposite Party. Ex.A6 legal notice dated 10-11-2008 issued to the Opposite Party appraising all the facts. The said notice was acknowledged under Ex.A7. The Opposite Party maintained silence and continued so on receiving notice from the Forum. From the material on record, it is evident, the Opposite Party has received all the equated monthly installments promptly except four installments that too due to non presentation of these four cheques by the Opposite Party. The philosophy behind is to attribute default and then demand, interest penal charges etc and etc. There is unfair trade practice writ large and deficiency of service. Accordingly, the point is answered.


5. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Party to (a) return the signed 4 blank cheques to the Complainant upon the Complainant remitting the four equated monthly installments (Rs.1475 x 4 ), (2) The Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation, (3) to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs, (4) The Opposite Party is further directed to issue a certificate, that the loan as mentioned in Ex.A2 certificate of Registration is cleared off.

ORDER ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

Complainant has filed this case for getting back his R.C. book,. Duplicate key, NOC of his vehicle and for compensation.
The contents of the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:
The complainant purchased a Bajaj Motor Bike from the 1st opp.party. The 1st opp.party arranged finance at 0% interest rate. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the 1st opp.party had kept the R.C. book and duplicate key of the vehicle in their custody on a condition that the same will be returned back at the time of repayment of entire instalments. The deems of the repayment of the loan was that the amount should be paid with 18 equal instalment of Rs.1667/-. The complainant has given 18 post dated cheque for an amount of Rs.1667/- each. All the cheques were honoured except 9th and 15th instalments. After knowing the dishonour of the said cheques, the complainant directly remitted the 9th and 15th instalments immediately. When the complainant approached the 1st opp.party for getting the R.C. Book, Duplicate key and NOC, the 1st opp.party demanded Rs.700/- as bank charges for the dishonour of 2 cheques. The said demand of the 1st opp.party is illegal and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief.

The 1st opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.The 1st opp.party is not engaged in any type of money lending business. The opp.party party is only the authorized dealer of Bajaj Make Motor Cycle. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle from the opp.party. The allegation in the said para that the 1st opp.party arranged financial assistance for the purchase of the motor cycle and obtained cheque leaves, original Registration Certificate and Duplicate key from the complainant is false and hence denied. In fact the complaint availed a loan from the M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. and executed documents in favour of them. The opp.party is no way connected with the said transaction and not aware of the terms and conditions thereof. All the allegations against these facts are utter falsehood and hence denied. The opp.party had no financial transaction with the complainant and the opp.party had not retain any records belong to the complainant. The complaint is filed without any bonafides and with an intent to harass and injure the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with 2nd opp.party, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Kollam. The complainant himself approached the Bajaj Auto Finance Company for hire purchase for the vehicle. Cheque NO.400210 dated 5.9.2004 and cheque No.400215 dated 5.2.2005 were bounced and return ed with the reason funds insufficient and towards bouncing charge of Rs.350/- per cheque the complainant is liable to pay Rs.700/- to the 2nd opp.party and then only the 2nd opp.party can issue NOC, Duplicate Key and RC of the vehicle. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay charges for cheque bouncing to the 2nd opp.party.. The 2nd opp.party has not done any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service to the complainant. If the complainant is paying the due amount of Rs.700/- to the 2nd opp.party the 2nd opp.party can issue the NOC and duplicate and records of the vehicle. Hence the 2nd 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 P3 are marked.
Opp.party is not examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.
Points:
The complainant’s case is that he purchased a Bajaj Boxer motor Bike from the 1st opp.party. 1st opp.party has kept the R.C Book and duplicate key of the vehicle till the time of repayment of entire instalments. The 9th and 15th instalments cheques were dishonoured . 1st opp.party demanded Rs.700/- as dishonour charges and did not return the R.C book , key and NOC. The said action is illegal.

After the version of 1st opp.party the complainant filed impleading petition and impleaded the 2nd additional opp.party. The 2nd additional opp.party also filed separate version. 2nd opp.party produced Hire purchase agreement Ext. D3 executed between the complainant and 2nd additional opp.party. 2nd additional opp.party also produced Ext. D1 the R.C. Book in which also there is an endorsement that the motor vehicle is subject to the Hire Purchase agreement with 2nd opp.party. When an agreement is executed the parties are liable to comply the conditions of agreement. The dispute arising in respect of Hire Purchase Agreement shall not come with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complainant is not a consumer

The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that he has defaulted 2 instalments. From the entire evidence we are of the view that the complainant is liable to pay the penal charges for default
In the result as the complainant is not a consumer the complaint is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/9

Balkaran Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Bajaj Finance


...........Respondent(s)



Sh.Balkaran Singh S/o Sh.Inder Singh, C/o Ranjeet Singh Randhawa Advocate, Barnala Road, Near ITI, P.O. Behni Bagha, Village Thuthianwali Kanchian, Mansa. ..... Complainant.


VERSUS

1.Bajaj Finance, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, 731, Amrik Singh Road, Opposite Hotel Civil Star, Bathinda 151501 2.Bajaj Finance, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, Akrudi, Pune through its Managing Director. .....

Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.R.S.Randhawa, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Opposite Party exparte. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh. Balkaran Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Bajaj Finance (hereinafter called as opposite parties), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Television in August, 2007, which was financed, by OP No.1. The complainant, had paid two advance installments in the sum of Rs.1560/- along with the file charges in the sum of Rs.500/- to OP No.1.

The remaining amount was to be paid by the complainant in installments in the




Contd........2 : 2 : sum of Rs.780/-, per month. Total eight advance cheques were given to OP No.1 by the complainant as per his demand at the time of advancement of loan. First installment was paid on 24.9.2007 vide cheque No.436911 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mansa branch in the sum of Rs.780/-. The complainant had issued post dates cheques No.436912 to 436917 dated 27.9.2007, 10.11.2007, 31.12.2007 and 18.2.2008. Against cheque No.436915 which was to be presented on 10.12.2007, the OP received cash payment from the complainant vide receipt dated 6.2.2008. Again cash payment was received by them vide receipt dated 11.3.2008 against cheque No.436916 and vide receipt dated 2.5.2008 against cheque No.436911. In all, the Ops have received a sum of Rs.7800/- from the complainant and all the installments stood paid by the complainant to OP No.1. However, when the complainant approached the Ops for issuance of No Objection Certificate and return of the three unused cheques bearing No.436915, 436916 and 436918, but instead of returning those cheques and issuance of NOC, the Ops demanded a sum of Rs.1130/- more in an illegal manner. Thus the complainant, has suffered, mental and physical harassment, due to conduct of the opposite parties and he is entitled, to receive back the three cheques along with the NOC from them and compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, and costs of litigation. Hence this complaint. Notice of the complaint was given, to the opposite parties, but they failed to appear, inspite of service. As such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.3.2009. In exparte evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ext.C-1 to C-11 including original receipts, legal notice, postal receipt, copy of entries made in the pass book, his affidavits, photocopy of certificate and bill before he closed his evidence. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the record.



Contd........3 :

3 : The complainant has produced on record copy of purchase invoice Ext. C-11 showing that he purchased the television manufactured by Samsung Company and paid a sum of Rs.1560 in advance. The remaining amount of Rs.6240/- was to be paid by the complainant in eight installments as mentioned in the purchase invoice and he has delivered eight cheques to OP No.1. The Ops have realized the amount of Rs.3900/- by getting enchashed the cheques bearing No.436911, 436912, 436913, 436914 and 436917 as evident from the copies of statement of account Ext.C-6 & C-10 and certificate issued by his bankers Ext.C-9 The remaining three cheques have not been enchashed and the complainant has deposited the amount of remaining three cheques in cash as established by receipts Ext.C-1 to C-3 issued by OP No.1 on 6.2.2008, 2.5.2008 and 11.3.2008. In the copy of the purchase invoice Ext.C-11, nothing is mentioned about the payment of penal interest on account of delay in payment of any installment.

The Ops have not come forward to contest the complaint inspite of notice and even failed to respond to the legal notice Ext.C-4 issued by the complainant before filing of the complaint. Since the complainant has paid the entire cost of purchase of television, as such, non issuance of clearance certificate and return of unused cheques, in our opinion, is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops for which both of them are jointly and severally liable, as OP No.1 has sold the television and received the amount thereof as dealer of OP No.2.

Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has to incur unnecessary expenditure for filing of the complaint, therefore, he is entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue Loan Clearance Certificate to the complainant and return him three unused cheques with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

The liability of the



Contd........4 :



4 : opposite parties to pay the above said amount to the complainant shall be joint and several. The compliance of the order be made within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Consumer Case No.590/2008

Between
Ch. Venkatachary, S/o. Basavachary,
Age 55 years, Occ: private Employee,
R/o. H.No.2-4-1033/2, plot No.10/B,
Road No.1Samathapuri Colony,
New Nagole,. Hyderabad. ……Complainant

And

Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, Rep by its
Manager, Manohar Sastry,
12-13-1274, Maspack House, 4th Floor,
Above Spenser’s Market, Tarnaka X Road,
Secunderabad. …..Opposite party


This case coming on 13-04-09 for final hearing before this forum in the presence of Party in-Person for the complainant and Sri., G. Srinivas Rao Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-

O R D E R

(By Sri N. Venkatesham, President on behalf of the bench)

. This complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.26,505/- along with interest or return the said computer to the complainant, along with all peripherals, to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and also costs of theis complaint. and pass such other order or orders as this Forum deemed fit proper in the circumstances of the case.


1. The case of the complainant runs thus:- The complainant with an intention to purchase a computer, went to the shop namely “REA MAX”, who informed the complainant that price of the computer is Rs.26,140/- as per configuration desired by the complainant and further informed the complainant that finance can also be obtained from the opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party and ascertained the details of the procedure about the repayment of instalments etc.. The complainant accepted the procedure explained to him by the opposite party. The loan was sanctioned should be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments. Of Rs.941/-. The complainant shall also deposited a sum of Rs.3,921/- with the opposite party as security deposit. Then the complainant sent to above said shop and purchased a computer together with accessories by paying a sum of Rs.4,671/- as down payment and that the remaining amount will be collected by the shop owner from the opposite party.
After sanctioning the loan, the complainant was asked by the opposite party to hand over 7 post dated cheques for the purpose of ECS for clearance of monthly instalments from the bank account of the complainant.
The complainant was paying regularly monthly instalments by depositing the amount in his account by the matter passed this way, after 22nd month, the opposite party has not cleared the instalment amount though substantial amount was available in his account. The action of the opposite party in clearing the instalments from the bank amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite party.
It is stated that on 24-5-2008 three persons from the opposite party came to the complainant and demanded to pay Rs.30,000/- including penalty charges as the complainant has not paid monthly instalments regularly for the last 10 months. So the complainant went to the opposite party and informed that he has been paying the instalments regularly and the opposite party instead of hearing him behaved in a rude manner. Ultimately, the opposite party took back the computer together with accessories though the complainant pleaded that he will pay the remaining 10 instalments at a time and that he also gave two cheques and that the opposite party encashed the amount covered by two cheques. Even after taking the computer and accessories from the complainant.. Thus the action is on the part of the opposite party amount, to cheating and same is contrary to law. Thus the complainant suffered with mental agony and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.26,505/- or return the computer along with accessories and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and costs.



2. The opposite party filed a counter/written version by stating that at the time of disbursing the loan amount, the company people have explained the terms and conditions and also explained that if the customer failed to pay the instalment, the company has every right to add penal interest as well as cheque bounce charges and also repossess the said article the customer agreed . After disbursing the loan amount, the complainant was very irregular in paying the instalments and most of the cheques got dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the complainant. the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the dues of 10 instalments otherwise requested to handed over the computer. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the instalments and voluntarily handover the computer and its accessories and to that effect a written letter was given. So the allegation of the complainant that forcibly took away the computer and accessories as stated in the complaint are not true. Hence the complaint is not entitled to any of the relief prayed for and prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with costs.



3. In course of enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6. Exhibit A1 is Estimation Slip and Down payment receipt of RES-MAX Business Services, dated 11-05-2005. Ex.A2 is Warranty card, dated 11-05-2005. Ex.A3 is Security Deposit Receipt, dated 11-05-2005. Ex.A4 is letter No.6156 issued by the opposite party, dated 26-05-2008. Ex.A5 is customer Statement issued by OP, dated 09-05-2008. Ex.A6 is Bank Statement
As against the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party got marked Exhibits B1 &B2. Exhibit B1 is letter addressed to the opposite party from the complainant, dated 26-05-2008. Ex. B2 is authorization letter, dated 13-09-08.
After closure of the evidence adduced by both parties, both of them filed written arguments
Heard oral submissions.

Points for Consideration is :-

1. Whether there was any negligence on the part of the opposite
parties 1&2 as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?


3 To what relief?

Points No.1 and 2:- The question that is being agitated and points for consideration before this Forum are:-


I. The opposite party and their representatives inspite of encashing the post dated cheques has seized the computer together with accessories and even after seizure, have encahsed two cheques.
The contention of the opposite party is that the cheques given by the complainant were bounced and the complainant himself voluntarily surrendered . P.C/System expressing his inability to clear the dues.
Having regard to the documents, affidavit evidence, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the system with opposite party’s finance and also given post dated cheques. It is also an undisputed fact that instalments were paid and after the socalled letter Exhibit B1, two more cheques were enchased by the opposite party. As per the statement of account submitted by the complainant under Exhibit A5, there is still amount more than the demand that will be encashed by the opposite party on the basis of post dated cheques ! and they had been encashed.
It is not in dispute with regard to the amounts paid towards clearance of loan and the statement submitted by either side. Now, the question that remains to be adjudicated between the parties, as per the affidavit evidence and the documents marked on either side (Exhibits A1 to A6 and Exhibits B1 &B2).


I. Whether the opposite party is justified in taking away the system
together with accessories ?

II. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
As seen from the affidavit evidence and documents and the averments in the complaint and counter, the complainant receiving the system on loan basis provided by the opposite party is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the complainant had paid 22 instalments at Rs.941/- and it is also not denied or disputed about encashment of two cheques for EMIs at Rs.941/-, after the socalled letter given by the complainant under Exhibit B1.


Having gone through the evidence available on record, the letter Exhibit B1 purported to have been given voluntarily by the complainant in handing over the P.C together with accessories to the agents of the opposite party shows that they have received the P.C and accessories without giving any credit to the instalment already paid and that too only 10 instalments are due as contended by them as on the date.
Whatever be the terms and conditions, the complainant clearly established that there is an amount more than EMIs of the opposite party to his credit in the bank and irrespective of presentation, the encashment, the adjustment, the fact remains that the opposite party even after taking over of the P.C and accessories had encashed two EMIs.


No doubt, the party taking loan must be carefully with regard to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, yet the opposite party (Financier) cannot take the undue advantage of certain clauses which are repugnant to the law of the land and opposed to public policy.


In the present case, there is no evidence forth coming from the opposite party and on the other hand the action taken by the opposite party is admittedly without intervention of the due process of law.
Having admittedly received moneys roughly Rs. (20,702+1,882 =22,584) and 10 instalments due, they have neither issued a notice nor tried to enforce the same by invoking the process of law, but instead have taken away the instrument under acknowledgement Exhibit A4.


Here, there may be same default on the part of the consumer/complainant but the same equal applies to the opposite party who have practically taken the law into their own hands. There is no under- taking or responsibility on the part of the opposite party to answer about major portion of the loan amount already received by the opposite party from the complainant and further receiving two EMIs. If this practice is tobe allowed, it would only amount to the proverbial Banker’s case about lending an umbrella when it is not raining and asking for its return the moment it starts raining.

Apart from the same, the contention of the opposite party is totally unsustainable, in view of the fact that they are neither answering nor making themselves to be answerable to the major portion of the loan amount they have advanced ?


Having regard to the circumstances and the contentions put forth by way of evidence and documents, we have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the opposite party wants to breath hot and cold in the same breath and such an act is permitted to go by without intervention, would only amount to gross abuse of due process of law and besides amounting to legalization of muscle power in extracting the money as referred to in the stories of “Kaboliwala”.


No doubt, the claim of the complainant to insist for return of the instrument and the accessories together with damages without under taking to pay balance/tendering balance appears to be inequitable. At the same time, the opposite party cannot be permitted to get away with the no liability, having received major portion of the loan amount and only 10 instalments being due as on the date of the socalled seizure and that too having encashed two EMIs. after the said date, we feel it reasonable just and proper to order the opposite party to restore the possession of the system together with accessories by receiving balance or in the alternative refund the amount already received together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its realization.


Points No.1 &2 are answered accordingly.


Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and we direct the opposite party to restore the possession of the system (computer) together with accessories by receiving balance or in the alternative refund the amount already received together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its realization and also refund a sum of Rs.3,921/- ( Rupees three thousand nine hundred and twenty one only) deposited by the complainant towards security. Cost of this litigation is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The order shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Vasappa s/o. Seetharamaiah,
“Sri Ranga Krupa” Complainant
2nd Cross, Vidyanagara,
Turuvekere – 572 227
(In person)
AND


1.The officer In-charge,
M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,
C/o. Akshaya Auto Service, Opposite parties
P.B.No.18, Sira Road,
Tumkur – 572 106
2.The Manager,
M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,
No.14, 1st Floor, 12th Cross,
Swimming Pool Extension,
(Above Subhiksha Deptl.Store,
Near Vinayaka circle),
Palace Guttahalli Main Road,
Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 003
(OP No.1 – Exparte)
(OP No.2- by advocate Sri.Venkataramana.K.R)

ORDER

This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act for short)

2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an award and order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs for short) to issue the No Objection Certificate/Clearance certificate of the vehicle and also the costs of Rs.5000/- being spent exclusively for travelling from Turuvekere to Bangalore to ascertain of NOC and also to pay damages of Rs.5000/- together with costs.

3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:
It is his case that, the complainant had taken an interest free loan of Rs.20,000/- from the 2nd OP for purchase of motor cycle vide proposal No.583 , Hire purchase agreement dated 23-7-2005. The complainant had submitted 12 post dated cheques for payment of Equated monthly installments of Rs.1667-00 each. It is further submitted that, from the bank account of the complainant, it is seen that, eight cheques were encashed. The 1st OP has informed the complainant vide letter dated 1-6-2006, the cheque No.839358 dated 20-4-06 for Rs.1667/- has been dishonoured by the bank for “Insufficient funds” and requested the complainant to deposit the amount by Demand Draft in favour of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd, payable at Tumkur. In this regard, on 13-6-06 the complainant had sent a DD No.427906 dated 13-6-06 for Rs.1667/- drawn in favour of “Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd” payable at Tumkur.

4. It is further submitted that, again on 19-7-06 the 1st OP had informed the complainant that, the cheque No.839359 dated 20-5-06 for Rs.1667/- has not been honoured by the bank and to pay outstanding amount by way of Demand Draft in favour of “Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd” payable at Tumkur. In this regard, on 10-8-2006 the complainant wrote a letter along with DD No.961487 dated 5-8-2006 for Rs.1667/- drawn in favour of “Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd” payable at Tumkur. The complainant requested the 1st OP to forward a copy of such dishonoured letter said to have been received from Bank and also requested to him return the dishonoured cheques No.839358 dated 20-4-06 and 839359 dated 20-3-06.

5. It is further contended that, on 18-10-06 representatives of the 2nd OP came to the house of the complainant and requested for payment of EMI. When the complainant informed about the post dated cheques given at the time of executing the agreement, the representatives informed to contact the office of the 2nd OP. However, the complainant has paid the amount of one EMI by cash vide receipt No.4046714 dated 18-10-06 wherein it was mentioned as 10 installment. However, it should have been 11th installment.

6. It is further contended that, on 28-12-06 the complainant went to the office of the 2nd OP and enquired. According to the statement obtained from the 2nd OP, the amount received by the 2nd OP was invariably different from actual payment. When it was explained and he submitted the documents, the office manager of the 2nd OP has informed the complainant that, he would contact the 1st OP to get the clarification.

7. It is further contended that, the complainant contacted 2nd OP on 19-1-2007 and 15-3-2007 and taken statements of account, but found no action was taken in the office of the 2nd OP. Their statements were differing from one statement to another. Contrary to the above, the 2nd OP has arranged his representatives from Davanagere to collect the alleged outstanding from the complainant

8. It is further contended that, on 8-8-07 the complainant has voluntarily made it clear to the 2nd OP that in case the dispute is not settled within 15 days, there was no alternative but to take up this dispute before court of law. Inspite of repeated requests, no action was taken, but the 2nd OP has arranged to collect the unauthorized amount by way of threatening.

9. Instead of replaying the above, on 10-8-2007 the 2nd OP sent a legal notice through his advocate to the complainant. The complainant’s vide his letter dated 27-8-07 has requested the advocate of the 2nd OP to clarify the following:
1)How the amount of Rs.6668/- is payable and to send the month wise details.
2)To send the details of cheque Nos. and date, also date on which the respondent No.2 has presented the cheques which were allegedly dishonoured by authorised bank.
3)To supply copy of endorsement/certificate of authorised bank dishonouring the cheques.
4)Who prevented the respondents from presenting the remaining cheques and where the remaining cheques are laying.

10. On 26-11-2007 when the complainant had been to the office of the 2nd OP, their statement was showing an arrears of Rs.14,318/-. When the complainant contacted the regional manager of the 2nd OP and explained and clarified that only one installment was due, the regional manager was convinced about his clarification. After that the complainant paid the last and final installment of Rs.1667/- in cash vide receipt No.53052 on 26-11-2007.

11. It is further contended that, till 26-11-2007, inspite of repeated correspondence no one has informed that the DD No.961487 dated 5-8-2006 has been lost and the complainant voluntarily informed the 2nd OP that, he would send the duplicate DD after ascertaining from the bank authorities. Accordingly, vide letter dated 14-1-2008, a revised DD No.310989 dated 28-12-2007 for Rs.1667/- drawn in favour of “Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd” on State Bank of Mysore payable at Tumkur was sent to the 2nd OP in place of DD No.961487 dated 5-8-2006, which was not credited to the account of the complainant and requested to release the NOC immediately without giving any recourse to other correspondence as the NOC was required to cancel the hypothecation to update the documents of the vehicle.

12. The complainant has also claimed bus fare from Turuvekere to Bangalore for 5 times at Rs.200/- each i.e. Rs.1000/- as this problem was created due to the gross negligence of the OPs in not replying to letters and not informing the fact that the DD had been lost. Therefore, financial loss and mental worry was caused to the complainant to go over to Bangalore exclusively for this purpose. Till 15-9-08, there was no response. Again on 15-9-08 when the complainant had been to the office of the 2ndnd OP by the complainant. OP to ascertain the reason for the delay of sending the NOC, he was shocked to notice that a sum of Rs.15,351/- was required to be paid to the 2

13. It is further contended that, on 15-9-2008 when the complainant contacted the regional manager of the 2nd OP, he assured to send the NOC within 3 days. The complainant did not agree for his assurance and insisted to give it in writing. Accordingly, on 15-9-2008 a letter was issued to the complainant stating that they got clarified and the NOC will be issued within three days from the date of issue of that letter. But till 16-10-2008 no such NOC was received. On 16-10-2008 when the complainant had been to the office of the 2nd OP, he was informed that the NOC was sent to the complainant’s address by courier. But they were unable to give any details of such dispatch of NOC or any information of having sent the NOC to the complainant. Under the above circumstance, the complainant has not received NOC from the 2nd OP, though the EMI has been fully paid. Because of this, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

14. Among the OPs who have been notified of the complaint, the 2nd OP put in his appearance through his counsel and resisted the same. The 1st OP has failed to appear before the forum, hence, placed exparte.

15. The gist of the objections is as follows:
In the objections filed by the 2nd OP, it is alleged that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts against this OP and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

16. This OP while emphatically denying all the complaint averments as false and untenable, inter-alia pleaded that, the complainant having entered into a loan agreement No.543/585 on 23-7-05 had availed finance of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of Bajaj Discover. The monthly installments to be paid per month was Rs.1667/-. The contract period was of 12 months and the rate of interest was 00.00% p.a.

17. It is further alleged that, credit against the cheque No.685209 dated 20-6-06 Rs.1667/- was not received and due to out station cheques, there was lot of confusion with the account of the complainant and there were many questions need to be clarified by the complainant. Hence NOC was on hold. However, this OP got clarification from the complainant and has waived off Rs.1667/- and penal charges & agreed to issue NOC to the complainant.

18. It is further alleged that, as per the assurance dated 15-9-08, this OP has dispatched the NOC to the complainant on 16-09-08 by ordinary post to his residential address given in the loan agreement. But the complainant has given wrong or insufficient address compared to that of the address given in the complaint. Hence, due to the wrong address/insufficient address, the NOC sent to the complainant was returned to the OP undelivered. It is further alleged that, due to latches on the part of the complainant in giving the wrong address, the NOC sent to his address has been returned and thereafter, the complainant never turned up again to collect his NOC. Hence, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It is further alleged that, the complainant instead of approaching the OP for his NOC has approached this forum with all these allegations only with an intention of getting compensation from this Hon’ble forum.

19. It is further alleged that, the complainant has not approached this court with clean hands and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.

20. It is further alleged that, the relation between the OP and the complainant is that of a creditor and debtor, as such the complainant is not a consumer and this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction. As per the several rulings of the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme court of India any dispute related to the accounts and terms and conditions of the agreements, the jurisdiction of try such cases is the civil court. As in such cases detailed evidence is required and lot of documents to be examined. Further any dispute between the parties as per the agreement the territorial jurisdictional is at Pune. Hence on this ground itself the complaint has to be dismissed. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

21. In support of the case, the complainant and the 2nd OP have filed their affidavits and they have also pressed into service of several documents. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on records.

22. The questions that arise for our considerations are:
1)Is there any deficiency of service by the OPs?
2)Is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as claimed?

23. Our findings on the above questions are here under.
Point No.1: Yes
Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

24. At the very threshold, we must point out that, though, there was difference opinion between the parties regarding certain payments, ultimately, those issues having been settled, the OPs had agreed to issue NOC to the complainant. It is the case of the OPs that, they did dispatch the NOC on 16-9-2008 to his given address. According to the OPs, they had dispatched the NOC to the following address.
To,
Vasappa
S/o. Seetharamaiah,
Sri Rangakrupa,
Behind Poornima Talkies,
Thuruvekere, Tumkur

25. It is also their case that, the complainant having given incorrect address, the said letter was dispatched to the complainant came to be returned unserved. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that, though there is little difference in the address given in the cause title and the hypothecation agreement, the complainant had made known his correct address as stated in the cause title in several of his letters. It is relevant to note that, in his letters to 2nd OP exhibits-C, E, J, L and P, he has clearly stated his address as here under:
Vasappa s/o. Seetharamaiah
Sri Ranga Krupa
2nd Cross, Vidyanagar,
Turuvekere-572227
Tumkur district.

26. Further, though the OPs had filed the letter dated 16-9-2008 issued to the complainant alongwith certificate of satisfaction and form No.35 duly signed by the authorised signatory of the OPs, no scrap of paper is produced to show that, they had sent such a letter to the complainant. Very conveniently the OPs have stated that, they have sent such letter by ordinary post. However, they have not produced the envelope which contained the said letter alongwith enclosures duly addressed to the complainant and the endorsement of the postal authority. Therefore, their say regarding dispatch of those documents to the complainant’s address can not be accepted. It can be safely said that, such defence is an after thought. It is relevant to note that, the cancellation of hypothecation agreement needs certain fee paid to be department. But, there is no material placed on record to indicate that, the OPs had made arrangements to pay the fee for cancellation of the hypothecation agreement created on the vehicle in question. The complainant having paid the entire dues to the OPs was certainly entitled to get his vehicle cleared from hypothecation agreement. When the OPs did not co-operate with the complainant to get the hypothecation agreement was cleared and made him to run from pillar to post, we are of the opinion that, he was subjected to humiliation and mental harassment. Therefore, the OPs having committed deficiency in service are liable to make good of the loss by paying a reasonable amount of compensation. However, under the circumstance of the case, we quantify it at Rs.4,000/- .

27. Though, the complainant has alleged that, he had spent about Rs.5000/- towards conveyance charges to go to Bangalore from Turuvekere and telephone charges, he is not placed any acceptable evidence in this regard. But, it is relevant note that, the complainant did approach the OPs for settling the discrepancy erupt in the account maintained by the OPs. Therefore, it is obvious that, he had spent a reasonable amount to reach them. Therefore, we fix the compensation under that head at Rs.2000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part with costs directing the OPs No.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.6,000/- being compensation as stated above with costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 8 weeks from the date of this order. It is ordered that, complainant shall take back the certificate of satisfaction and Form No.35 submitted by the OPs to this Forum for cancellation of hypothecation agreement by meeting the expenses from his own pocket.

ORDER

COMPLAINANT Sri.Srinivas Gowda V@ Srinivas.


VS/o

Venkataramaiah,Hindu, Major,Residing at No.772,4th Cross, 4th Main,Mathikere,Bangalore – 560 054.Advocate – Sri.R.Vijay Kumar

V/s.

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Manager,M/s. BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,At No.29, I Floor,“ANUGRAHA”Swimming Pool Extension,P.G Halli Main Road,12th Cross, Malleshwarm,Bangalore – 560003.Having its registered office at Mumbai-Pune Road,Akrudi, Pune-411035.Advocate – Sri.Venkataramana K.R.


O R D E R


This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to issue No Objection Certificate and return the blank cheques and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant entered into financial agreement with OP on 11.06.2004 availed a loan of Rs.36,020/- to purchase a motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EH-4734. He agreed to repay the said loan in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,298/- with 9.90% interest.


As a security for the repayment of the said EMI he has given the blank cheques. The said vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the OP by RTO. Then complainant paid the entire loan amount with interest and sought for the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and also return of the unused blank cheques.

Though OP acknowledged the receipt of entire loan amount but failed to return the said blank cheques and failed to issue NOC. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP went in futile. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.



2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. According to OP most of the employees of its branch office left the job, due to communication gap there was some delay in issuance of the NOC. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they did try their level best to comply. Ultimately they issued the NOC and returned the cheques. Hence no such prejudice is caused to the complainant. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.



4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order?



5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S


6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the financial assistance from OP to purchase a two-wheeler agreeing to repay the same in 36 EMI. It is also not at dispute that OP got created the hypothecation of the said vehicle. An entry has been made in the R.C. It is further stated by the complainant as a security for the repayment of the said loan OP collected blank cheques. Thereafter complainant thought of foreclosure of the said loan. On discussions OP claimed Rs.46,728/- towards the full and final settlement of the loan. Complainant paid the same on 15.06.2007. This fact is also not at dispute.


7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that even though he discharged the entire loan with interest and other charges on 15.06.2007. OP failed to issue the NOC and intimation to the RTO to delete hypothecation entry and so also failed to return the unused blank cheques. Hence he felt deficiency in service. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP almost all the facts are admitted, only defence is that as most of the employees of the OP branch left the job for dirth of staff, they are unable to issue the NOC immediately. It is all because of the communication gap. Ultimately they issued the NOC on 28.02.2009 though loan is cleared on 15.06.2007. This fact itself is sufficient to hold that there is a deficiency in service. 8. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP filed this complaint on 28.01.2009.

To save its skin out of sin. OP produced the NOC and returned the unused cheques on 28.02.2009 that is after one month from the date of filing of the complaint and also took steps for the cancellation of the hypothecation. Under the circumstances we find complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss.


9. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. A token of compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.500/- will meet the ends of justice. The purpose for which this complaint is filed is fulfilled. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.


This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

Mr.Jude C.Rego,
S/o A.L.Rego,
Aged 49 years,
Luciana Manzil, Vas Lane,
Mangalore-2. …. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri K.Premanath)
VERSUS
M/s Bajaj Auto Finance,
Sherlon Square,
Morgan’s Gate Mangalore,
Represented by its Manager ….OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The allegation of the Complainant is that, he has purchased a motorbike from Supreme Motors Mangalore by obtaining loan facility of Rs.38,992/- from the Opposite Party as per loan account No. 00059998 which is repayable in 36 monthly installment of Rs.1,438/-. It is submitted that Opposite Party has collected 36 post dated cheques in advance, some of the cheques encashed and some of the cheques were dishonoured and it is stated that Complainant has paid dishonoured cheque amount later. It is submitted that, Complainant paid the entire balance amount of Rs.14,514/- on 17.4.2008 and closed the loan amount. Out of 36 installments, the first installment was collected in advance and remaining 35 installments are paid by the Complainant. It is alleged that, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the remaining cheques and also the original documents and duplicate key of the bike. But the Opposite Party did not return the same instead of that the Opposite Party presented one cheque dated 17.4.2008 and encashed Rs.1,438/- inspite of closing the loan amount. Feeling aggrieved by the above acts of the Opposite Party the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,438/- with interest at 15% per annum from 17.4.2008 till the date of payment and further claimed Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Despite of serving notice, neither appeared nor contested the case till this date and proceeded exparte as against Opposite Party and the acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that he had paid the entire loan amount to the Opposite Party?

(ii)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

(iii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iv)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Jude C.Rego (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party despite of serving notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii): Affirmative.
Point No. (iii) & (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINTs NO.(i) to (iv):
In the present case, the Opposite Party despite of serving notice by RPAD not appeared nor represented the case till this date.
In order to substantiate the case of the Complainant, the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C7. Wherein Ex.C6 i.e. statement of Account dated 15.4.2009 issued by the Opposite Party wherein it is proved that the Complainant availed the loan of Rs.38,992/- and EMI agreed between the parties of Rs.1,438/-. On careful scrutiny of the statement of account wherein total seven cheques returned as insufficient funds but the Complainant herein claimed that the dishonoured cheque amount has been paid by him later and produced Ex.C2 and C3 wherein it is proved that the Complainant paid the seven EMI’s with penal interest.
And further we have perused the Ex.C4 and C5 i.e. copy of letter dated 22.5.2008 sent to the Opposite Party and also the lawyers notice dated 27.9.2008 produced by the Complainant shows that the said notices issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party but it is not forthcoming whether it has been served to the Opposite Party or not. However, the version notice has been served by this Forum by RPAD and the Opposite Party not bothered to appear before the Fora and contradict the evidences produced by the Complainant. The entire evidence produced before the Fora by the Complainant is not contraverted nor rebutted by the Opposite Party, which requires no further proof.
On the other hand, the Ex.C7 i.e. the copy of the pass book pertaining to the Complainant shows that on 29.4.2008 Rs.1,438/- has been collected by the Opposite Party despite of paying entire loan amount. Since there is no explanation from the Opposite Party we do consider that the amount of Rs.1,438/- collected by the Opposite Party is excess which amounts to deficiency in service. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party inspite of taking entire loan amount not returned the remaining cheques and original documents and the duplicate key of the bike which amounts to deficiency. Hence, we hereby direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,438/- and return all the remained cheques and original documents and duplicate key of the bike to the Complainant immediately. And further Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund Rs.1,438/- and return all the remained cheques and original documents and duplicate key of the bike to the Complainant immediately. And further Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

A.V.Sundara Moorthy, S/o.A.S.Vellingiri Naidu,
292-A, Appanaickenpalayam Kuttai,
Thudiyalur, Coimbatore. Complainant
Vs.
M/s.Balaji Auto Finance Ltd.,
68, First floor, Ponnurangam street(W),
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2. Opposite party
---
This case coming on for final hearing before us o 27.4.09 in the presence of Mr.P.R.Ramesh Babu Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party 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, the Forum passed the following.
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 bearing regn.No.TN 38 AB 8478 along with No due certificate, to return the duplicate key of the above said vehicle, to pay Rs.15,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.
The Averments in the Complaint are as follows:


1. The complainant had purchased a motorcycle bearing No.TN 38 AB 8478 availing financial assistance of Rs.32,790 from the opposite party under proposal No.24927 dt.14.6.05. The opposite party is entitled to seek repayment of Rs.43,128 in 36 equal monthly instalments at Rs.1198. The complainant had issued 36 cheque from his post office savings bank account R.S.Puram HPO Coimbatore, the opposite party collected 34 instalments presenting 34 cheques. The two cheques bearing Nos.721950 and 721967 have been returned with an endorsement of “insufficient funds”. The complainant paid this amount by way of two pay orders bearing Nos.361131 and 361132 dt.22.7.08 in favour of opposite party for Rs.1200 each drawn on South Indian bank Ltd. Coimbatore. On payment of the entire amount of Rs.43,128 the complainant is entitled to seek return of the original RC book and the duplicate key of the vehicle. But the opposite party has made a false claim that the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,000 and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1218 towards insurance amount payable for the vehicle. The complainant has already insured the vehicle with Reliance General Insurance for the period commencing from 9.7.08 to 8.7.09 under policy No.1202 7823 1201 0242. The complainant being an illiterate person, the opposite party taking advantage of his illiteracy, is trying to make illegal and unlawful enrichment by seeking exorbitant amount of Rs.12,000 for returning the RC book of the vehicle and the duplicate key retained by the opposite party. The complainant had sought for return of the RC book along with the No Due Certificate and the duplicate key of the vehicle through Lawyers’ notice, dt.22.7.08. The opposite party has received the notice, but has not chosen to give any reply or comply with the lawful demand of the complainant. Hence this complaint.


2. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A7 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte.
The point for consideration is
Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in
service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?
ISSUE NO.1:


3. The present complaint is filed for a direction to return the RC book of the vehicle bearing No.TN 38 AB 8478 along with no due certificate to the complainant, to return the duplicate key of the vehicle and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000 towards compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.


4. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of the RC book for the vehicle bearing TN 38 AB 8478 in the name of the complainant Sundaramoorthy. Ex.A2 is the customer statement issued by the opposite party, Ex.A3 is the lawyer notice, A4 and A5 are the Xerox copies of pay order for the payment of Rs.1200 each. Ex.A7 is the copy of insurance policy issued by the Reliance General Insurance. As per Ex.A2, A4 and A5 statement, the complainant has paid 36 instalments. As per endorsement in Ex.A1 the vehicle has been purchased by the financial assistance granted by the opposite party. On payment of the entire amount of Rs.43,128 the complainant is entitled to seek return of the original RC book and the duplicate key of the vehicle. The retention of the RC book and duplicate key and the non issuing of No Due Certificates tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.


5. In the result we direct the opposite party to return the RC book of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 38 AB 8478 along with the no due certificate to the complainant, to return the duplicate key of the said vehicle, direct to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 towards compensation for the deficiency in service and to pay cost of Rs.1000 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

Sh. Anil Guleria son of Sh. Nand Lal resident of village and Post Office Bhangrotu, Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P.


…Complainant


V/S


1.Chairman/ Secretary, The Bajaj Finance Bajaj Auto finance Limited III rd Floor Leela Bhavan ( Aparna) Khalini Shimla-171002.

2.The Manager , Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd Gutkar ,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. C/o Malhotra Motors Gutkar ,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

3.Chairman /Secretary, the Bajaj Finance , the Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd C/o Hind Motors Ltd 9 ,Industrial Area Phase -1 Chandigarh.

4.Prop. Malhotra Motors Ltd Gutkar , Post Office Gutkar , Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.






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 had purchased New vehicle Motor Cycle Bajaj Platina from M/S Malhotra Motors Gutkar , Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. in the month of October 2006 which was financed by the opposite parties branch at Gutkar . The cost of motor cycle was Rs.36,500/- and out of this amount Rs.15,000/- was paid by him to the dealer Malhotra Motors Gutkar and an amount of Rs.21,500/- has been financed by the opposite party No.2 and in lieu thereof opposite party No.2 had taken 18 cheques from the complainant of State Bank of India Mandi, Branch of saving account No.01190026562 and monthly instalments of Rs.1514/- was fixed The opposite party No.2 told the complainant that one cheque out of 18 given by him amounting to.15,000/- had been adjusted at the time of the purchase of the said vehicle i.e. on 4-11-2006 and remaining 17 cheques amount had been received by the opposite parties i.e. on 10-11-2006, 13-12-2006, 6-1-2007, 9-2-2007,14-3-2007, 16-3-2007, 12-4-2007 and 18-4-2007, the said instalments has been paid by the complainant in cash and remaining instalment have been received by the opposite parties through cheques from the account of the complainant on dated 4-7-2007, 1-8-2007, 28-8-2007, 18-12-2007, 18-12-2007, 18-12-2007 ( three times ) and an amount of Rs.1614/- has also been deposited in cash on 25-2-2008 by the complainant to the official of the opposite party No.2 and after that same remaining amount has been received by the opposite parties through cheques dated 21-2-2008, 19-3-2008, 3-4-2008 and the opposite parties had also charged Rs.722/- from the complainant on 28-2-2008 through cheque The complainant alleged that the opposite party has charged Rs.43074/- from him in place of Rs.40,738/- and in this way Rs.2336/- have been charged in excess which act on the part of the opposite parties is highly wrong , illegal and unlawful. It has further been alleged that the complainant visited many times to the opposite party No.2 for issuance of the no objection certificate but the same was not supplied to him. With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,336/- taken in excess with interest and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.



2. The opposite parties 1,3 and 4 were duly served but failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte.. The complaint against the opposite party No.2was dismissed for want of prosecution as per order dated 11-12-2008.


3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire record .The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a motor cycle from the opposite party No.2. According to the complainant, the price of the motor cycle was Rs.36,500/- and out of which a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by him to the opposite party No.4 at the time of purchase and rest of amount of Rs.21,500/- had been financed by Manager, Bajaj Finance Gutkar ( opposite party No.2). Further case of the complainant is that the loan amount had to be repaid by him to the opposite party No.2 and he had issued 18 post dated cheques to the opposite party No.2 of his account No.01190026562 of State Bank of India Mandi branch and the instalment was fixed in the sum of Rs.1514/- per month. The complainant further alleged that he was told at the time of purchase that one cheque out of 18 cheques given by him to the opposite party No.2 had been adjusted by it and 17 cheques amount has been received by the opposite party in cash on 10-11-2006, 13-12-2006, 6-1-2007, 9-2-2007, 14-3-2007, 16-3-2007, 12-4-2007 and 18-4-2007 and cheques dated 4-7-2007, 1-8-2007, 28-8-2007, 18-12-2007, 18,12-1007 and 18-12-2007 of the complainant had also been encashed by the opposite party No.2. Complainant further alleged that a sum of Rs.1614/- has also been deposited in cash by him on 25-2-2008. The complainant has further alleged that cheques dated 21-2-2008, 19-3-2008, and 3-4-2008 of the complainant had also been encashed by the opposite party No.2 and also charged Rs.722/- on 28-2-2008 through cheque .The complainant says that he had paid in all a sum of Rs.43,074/- in place of Rs.40,738/- and he had been charged an amount of Rs.2336/- extra. The onus was upon the complainant to prove and establish by placing on record the receipts and statement of account of the Bank. However, he has filed nine receipts Annexure 2 to Annexure -10 issued by the opposite party No.2 and had also made an attempt to satisfy this Forum by pressing hard the photocopy of the pass book Annexure -1, but the photocopy of the pass book cannot be considered as a piece of evidence because it is incomplete and not certified by the concerned Bank and it also nowhere shows that whether it pertains to the complainant’s account or of some one else . The complainant should have placed on record certified copy of statement of said account from the concerned bank showing that this much amount has been drawn by the opposite party No.2 against cheques of the complainant but the same is lacking. No doubt the complainant had alleged that a sum of Rs. 2336/- had been charged in excess but he has even failed to produce on record the proforma invoice of the vehicle and the receipt of Rs.15,000/- given by the complainant to opposite party No.4 as advance money. No agreement has been placed on record by the complainant that a loan of Rs.21,500/- had been advanced by the opposite party No.2 for the purchase of the motor cycle and there is no document on record about the fixation of instalments of loan . Since the complainant has failed to satisfy this Forum that Rs.21,500/- has been advanced by the opposite party No.2 for the purchase of the motor cycle , it is difficult for this Forum to come to the conclusion as to whether the complainant had been charged excessively by the opposite parties or not .The complainant has failed to establish on record by adducing any documentary evidence that an amount of Rs.215,00/- was financed by the opposite party No.2 and monthly instalment was fixed at the rate of Rs.1514/- per month . He further failed to establish on record by leading cogent evidence on record that Rs.2336/- were charged in excess from him. . In view of this position , we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove and establish that the opposite parties have over charged him and they are deficient in providing service to him.




4 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rathnakaran Praveen Kumar,
S/o. Late. Srinivasa Raju,
Formerly at Kadapa and Tiruapti,
Now at No.6, 1st Block, IVth Main,
Ayyappa Nagar,
K.R.Puram,
Bangalore. … Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,
Almaspet,
Kadapa.

2. The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,
19-3-1K, Renigunta Road,
Tirupati. … Opposite parties.


ORDER


This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver no due certificate, to refund Rs.8,798/- which was collected excessively, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.1,500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.



2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant while residing at Kadapa purchased Pulsar 150 ES – DTS -1 vehicle bearing registration No.AP04-J-9634 by availing loan facility from opposite party No.1 on 28.06.2005 for Rs.44,010/-. The loan amount was repayable in 18 installments at Rs.2,445/- commencing from 15.07.2005. The complainant’s mother K.Jayapradamma, who was working as Accounts Officer in A.P.S.P.D.C.L. at Kadapa stood as guarantor for the repayment of the loan amount. For due discharge of the loan, the complainant submitted 18 post dated cheques bearing Nos. 40561 to 40578 payable on 15th of every month from 15.07.2005 to 15.12.2006. The complainant was clearing the cheques up to January 2006 through Central Bank of Kadapa where he was having S.B.Account No.9934. Thereafter, the complainant left for Hyderabad for prosecuting his further studies in Charted Accountancy. Consequently there were no payments by way of cheques from February 2006. The agents of opposite parties were collecting installments due from the complainant’s mother. When the complainant’s mother requested for return of the unused cheques, the agents of the opposite parties assured that they would be returned after due discharge of the loan amount and the cheques would not be misused.

The complainant’s mother was paying the installments due and was obtaining receipts regularly. The complainant’s mother paid a total amount of Rs.41,565/- up to 17th installment by 22.11.2006. The complainant’s mother promised to pay the last installment of Rs.2,445/- on 15.12.2006. The opposite parties have not taken any steps to collect the amount. On 10.03.2007 two persons came to the residence of the complainant’s mother at Kadapa and demanded the payment of last installment of Rs.2,445/- + penalty. When the complainant’s mother protested for payment of penalty, they behaved rudely and forcibly took away the vehicle which was kept in the premises of the house along with the keys without resorting to any due process of law. The complainant could not give police complaint against their atrocities as he was busy with his marriage function scheduled to be held on 04.04.2007. Under forcible circumstances, the complainant paid the last installment of Rs.2,445/- + penalty of Rs.3,900/- on 10.03.2007 and took possession of the vehicle. But no due certificate was not given. Subsequently, due to transfer of complainant’s mother from Kadapa to Tirupati during May 2007 they shifted the family to Tirupati from Kadapa. The complainant got employment opportunity as Senior Executive in General Electronics at Bangalore on 06.03.2008. So, he needed a conveyance and transported the said two wheeler from Tirupati to Bangalore. The Karnataka State insisted no objection certificate from opposite party No.1 for registration purpose. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 22.03.2008 requesting to issue no due certificate for which they demanded saying two more installments were due.

The complainant represented that he already paid the last installment with penalty on 10.03.2007 and no further amount was due. However, the opposite party No.2 ignored his representation. To meet his urgency for obtaining no objection certificate, the complainant paid Rs.4,890/- (4,700 + 190) as demanded by opposite party No.2 and obtained receipt on 22.03.2008. To ascertain the payment particulars, the complainant on 14.08.2008 demanded opposite parties 1 and 2 to furnish the loan agreement copy by enclosing postal order for Rs.10/- under R.T.I. Act, to enable him to verify whether the opposite party demanded excessively to take further action. Despite a telegram on 27.08.2008 the opposite party remained unmindful and failed to furnish the loan agreement copy and no due certificate. The opposite parties thus caused mental torture to the complainant which amounts not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 09.02.009 to refund the excess amount of Rs.8,798/- and to furnish the no due certificate along with unused cheques. The opposite party No.1 received the notice and opposite party No.2 refused to receive the same. Hence the complaint.


3. The opposite parties 1 and 2, having received the notice, remained exparte.


4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit. The complainant also filed 11 documents, which are marked as Exs. A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is receipt dt:05.07.2006 for Rs.4,890/- issued by opposite party No.2 towards arrears of installment Nos.9,11 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A2 is receipt dt:05.09.2006 for Rs.4,890/- issue by opposite party No.2 towards arrears of installment Nos.2,13 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A3 is receipt dt:22.11.2006 for Rs.4,890/- issued by opposite party No.2 towards arrears of installment Nos.14,16 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A4 is receipt dt:10.03.2007 for Rs.6,345/- issued by opposite party No.2 towards arrears of 17th installment and penal charges of Rs.3,900/- in the name of the complainant. Ex.A5 is receipt dt:22.03.2008 for Rs.4,700/- issued by opposite party No.2 towards arrears of installment Nos.12,18 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A6 is receipt dt:22.03.2008 for Rs.190/- issued by opposite party No.2 in the name of the complainant. Ex.A7 is office copy of letter dt:14.08.2008 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1 with postal acknowledgement. Ex.A8 is office copy of telegram issued to opposite party No.1 on 27.08.2008 by the complainant with telegram receipt. Ex.A9 is office copy of legal notice dt:09.02.2009 got issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex.A10 is returned postal cover addressed to opposite party No.2 with endorsement “refused”. Ex.A11 is postal acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 for Ex.A9 notice.


5. On the basis of pleadings in the complaint, the points that arise for determination are:-

(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

(iii) To what result?


6. Point No.(i):- The complainant’s case is that he purchased Pulsar 150 ES – DTS -1 two wheeler by availing loan of Rs.44,010/- from opposite party No.1 on 28.06.2005 repayable in 18 installments at Rs.2,445/- commencing from 15.07.2005, that he issued 18 post dated cheques payable on 15th of every month through Central Bank, Kadapa from 15.07.2005 to 15.12.2006 and cleared the cheques up to January 2006, and that subsequently the opposite parties collected installments from his mother, who was the guarantor, working as Accounts Officer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Kadapa. His further case is that the agents of opposite parties collected the last payment of Rs.2,445/- + penalty of Rs.3,900/- on 10.03.2007, that on 22.03.2008 the opposite party No.2 collected Rs.4,890/- (4,700 + 190) and issued receipt, that the opposite parties failed to issue no due certificate, and that inspite of letter dt:14.08.2008 and telegram dt:27.08.2008 the opposite parties failed to furnish loan agreement copy. According to the complainant he paid the installments from 15.07.2005 to January 2006 and his mother paid the remaining installments at Kadapa. Exs. A1 to A6 disprove the version of the complainant.

They show that installments 9,11,2,13,14,16,17,12 and 18 were paid to opposite party No.2 at Tirupati. Exs. A1 to A6 further show that the complainant was very irregular in paying the installments. Even as per the complaint, the installments were payable on 15th of every month. It is not clear from the complaint what is the exact amount paid by the complainant by way of cheques and the amount paid by his mother in cash. According to the complainant, the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.8,798/-. The complainant failed to establish that in excess of the amount due the opposite parties collected Rs.8,798/-. According to the complainant he paid 11 installments up to January 2006 through cheques. However, Exs.A1 and A2 show that the complainant paid installments Nos.9,11 on 05.07.2006 and installment No.2 on 05.09.2006. According to the complainant though all the installments were paid by 10.03.2007 the opposite party No.2 collected Rs.4,700/- and Rs.190/- under Exs.A5 and A6 saying that two installments were still due. Ex.A5 shows that the amount of Rs.4,700/- was collected towards arrears of installment Nos. 12 and 18. Therefore, it cannot be said that after payment of all the 18 installments the opposite party No.2 collected Rs.4,700/- under Ex.A5 towards two more installments. The complainant himself under Ex.A4 paid Rs.3,900/- towards penal charges. As the complainant was very irregular in payment of the installments, he paid penal charges of Rs.3,900/- under Ex.A4. The complainant failed to establish that the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.8,798/- from him.


7. On Ex.A6 the opposite party No.2 made an endorsement that all the EMI’s were cleared and they will follow up no objection certificate. Having made the above endorsement on Ex.A6 on 22.03.2008, the opposite parties failed to issue no objection certificate to the complainant nearly for one year. The complainant got issued legal notice on 09.02.2009 and filed the complaint on 07.03.2009. The complainant sent Ex.A7 letter and Ex.A8 telegram requesting opposite party No.1 to send copy of loan agreement under R.T.I.Act. The opposite party No.1 failed to issue agreement copy. According to the complainant as the opposite parties failed to issue no due certificate, he could not get the vehicle registered in Karnataka State. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant in not issuing the no due certificate even after receipt of all the EMI’s from the complainant. Hence, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered.


8. Point No.(ii):- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled for issuing of no objection certificate by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant is, however, not entitled for refund of Rs.8,798/- as claimed. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony for non-delivery of no due certificate for the last one year and causing much hardship in getting the vehicle registered at Karnataka State. The said claim is on higher side. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- by the opposite parties for causing hardship and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards legal expenses as claimed. This point is accordingly answered.


9. Point No.(iii):- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver no due certificate to the complainant, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.1,500/- towards legal expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.

The complainant came to know about the 2004 Pooja offer exchange for TVs through advertisement and exchanged his old Television with new Philips colour T.V 21 PT 2443 from the 1st respondent on 25/10/2004. The 1st respondent issued a credit bill No.88260 for Rs.13,990/-. In order to purchase the new Television the 2nd respondent has arranged finance as directed by the 1st respondent. It was agreed that Rs.1000/- the price of old Television will be reduced by the end of the finance. The complainant has remitted Rs.13,992/- with the 2nd respondent by cheque and also by direct remittance. The respondents has charged Rs.1715/- as processing charges from the complainant at the same time Rs.1000/- the price of old TV has not been reduced. Thus the respondents have collected Rs.2715/- in excess from the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2. In a counter version the 1st respondent has stated that the complaint is lacking non joinder of necessary parties since the 1st respondent is not a proprietorship firm but a partnership firm. The 1st respondent has given a Philips colour TV model 21 PT 2443 to the 2nd respondent on 25/10/2004. As per the Credit bill No.88260 the amount will be paid by instalments. The 2nd respondent has given the Television to the complainant. It was the 2nd respondent who promised to give the price to the complainant and the 2nd respondent is liable to give the details of remittance to the complainant. The 1st respondent did not take TV from the complainant and did not fix price. This respondent is not a necessary party and dismiss the complaint.

3.The 2nd respondent has filed a separate version to the following effect. The 2nd respondent and the complainant have entered into a written agreement and both parties are bound by the terms of agreement. As per this agreement the complainant has to remit the amount b y monthly instalments and if any default additional finance charges can be levied by the respondent. The complainant is quite aware of these facts. Being the financier this respondent is the owner of the product in question. The ownership can only be transferred after remitting the entire amount. The complainant has defaulted the instalments and the accounts showing the arrear instalment have already made known to the petitioner. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. 3rd respondent is declared exparte.

5. Points for consideration are:
1) Is the petitioner eligible to get refund of the amount as prayed ?
2) Other reliefs and costs ?

6. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibit R1.

7. Points : The complainant’s case is that he bought a Philips colour TV from the 1st respondent for Rs.13,990/- in exchange to his old TV. The finance for the purchase was arranged by the 2nd respondent. It was also agreed that Rs.1000/- will be reduced at the end of the finance arrangement. But it was not reduced. At the same time Rs.1715/- was collected from him in excess as additional financial charges. In the counter version the 1st respondent has stated that the Television was given to the 2nd respondent and the transaction was made between the complainant and the 2nd respondent. The version of 2nd respondent is that 2nd respondent has made the finance for the purchase and the money need to be repaid by monthly instalments. According to them as per the agreement, entered into between this respondent and complainant, the complainant had to pay the amount by monthly instalments.

If there is any default they have every right to impose interest and additional charges etc. Exhibit P3 is the customer statement issued by the 2nd respondent. As per this the hirer was the complainant and the amount financed was Rs.13990/-, for which they have collected Rs.13992/- by 12 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1166/- each. The 2nd respondent has paid the price of the Television bought by the complainant and they collected the money by monthly instalments from the complainant. So there is no question of levying penal interest and other connected charges. The case of complainant is that the 2nd respondent had taken Rs.1715/- in excess by stating processing charges. According to him it is illegal and liable to be refunded. Exhibit R1 and Exhibit P3 are the same document showing the customer statement and in which it is shown that Rs.1715/- as processing charges.

The complainant seeks to return this amount being illegal. This amount is not the charges for belated payment. This is the charges for processing the loan. The fixation of rate of processing charge is their own business matters and the complainant has no right to question it. If he has any objection he has every liberty to withdraw from the transaction with them at the very beginning. These private financing institutions are doing the business only for making profit and the customers are to be vigilant. According to us the amount taken by them are the charges they are entitled to impose for processing the loan. So no illegality is found.

8. Another aspect put forward by the complainant is exchange of old Television with new Television. There is no evidence at all to show this transaction and not entitled to get any relief.

9. In the result complaint stands dismissed.

Mr.U.S.Venugopal,

S/o. U.Somappa,

Aged 52 years,

R/A. Aranthodu Village,

Sullia Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate: Sri.Vijay Kumar K.)



VERSUS



1. The Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

Shalom Complex,

Retreat Centre,

Jeppu, Valencia,

Mangalore – 575 002.



2. Mr.A.Dinesh,

Prop: Adkar Electronics,

Main Road,

Sullia – 574 239. ……. OPPOSITE PARIES


1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

It is submitted that in the month of January 2006 Complainant purchased 21’’ Sony T.V., Stabilizer and DTH amounting to Rs.16,500/- from the shop of the Opposite Party No.2. At the time of purchase, the Complainant paid Rs.6,500/- by way of cash and for the remaining balance amount obtained personal loan facilities from Opposite Party No.1 and agreed to pay the loan amount in 8 monthly installments amounting to Rs.1,250/- per month and issued 8 post dated cheques bearing No.420503 to 420510 drawn on Vijaya Bank.

It is submitted that the Complainant was very regular in payment, in the month of November 2006 his cheque bearing No.420507 has not been enached by the Opposite Party No.1 hence Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant to issue another self cheque for Rs.1,250/- and the same has been issued by the Complainant and the Opposite Party received the same and issued the receipt. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 promised that they are not going to present the above said cheque but inspite of the promise the Opposite Party presented the above said cheque and collected the excess amount of Rs.1,250/-. Thereafter the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return the excess amount of Rs.1,250/- but the Opposite Party failed to pay the same which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.1,250/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and also Rs.10,000/- claimed as compensation.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel filed version admitted the entire transaction and states that the Complainant had issued cheque bearing No.420507 dated 10.10.2006 for Rs.1,250/- deposited for encashment and the same got dishonoured and thereafter it was resubmitted by the Opposite Party and got it cleared. Subsequently the said Complainant made cash payment of Rs.1,250/- against the above said installment hence the above problem came to be occurred. However, this Opposite Party refunded the amount vide cheque No.941668 dated 31.7.2008 for Rs.1,250/- drawn on HDFC bank, the Complainant failed to collect the said cheque despite of request and contended that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Opposite Party No.2 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date and hence proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?



(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?


4. In support of the complaint, Sri.U.S.Venugopal (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C6 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Paresh (RW1), Officer of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R3 were marked for the Opposite Party No.1 as listed in the annexure. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons



5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

It is admitted that the Complainant availed a finance of Rs.14,990/- for purchase of Sony CTV and monthly installments to be paid per month was of Rs.1,250/- and the contract period was of 12 months. It is also admitted that the Complainant had issued a cheque bearing No.420507 dated 10.10.2006 for Rs.1,250/- and the said cheque has been dishonoured and thereafter it was resubmitted by the Opposite Party and got it cleared from the account of the Complainant and at the same time the Complainant made cash payment of Rs.1,250/- against the above said installment.

From the above admitted facts it is proved that the Opposite Party received excess amount of Rs.1,250/- from the Complainant. That the notices dated 29.12.2007 and dated nil (i.e., Ex C2 and C4) reveals that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and sent the above notices and the same has been served to the Opposite Party despite of that the Opposite Parties were not bothered to refund the amount. On the other hand the Opposite Party taken a contention that they have drawn a cheque dated 31.7.2008 for Rs.1,250/- but despite of repeated request the Complainant has not collected the said cheque. This part of the defence is not acceptable because the Opposite Party ought to have sent the cheque by R.P.A.D. or any other communication mode to reach the cheque to the Complainant. But there is no attempt has been made by the Opposite Party.

On over all perusing the documents as well as the oral evidence on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the Opposite Party collected excess amount of Rs.1,250/- and despite of request made by the Complainant the Opposite Party failed to refund the same which amounts to deficiency in service.

In view of the above reasons, we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1,250/- and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the Complainant. Apart from the above Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

There is no deficiency proved against the Opposite Party No.2 hence complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.



6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,250/- and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.