Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/117

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAHUL HAMEED - Opp.Party(s)

PHILIP T VARGHESE

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.117/14

JUDGMENT DATED:30.01.2015

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                                   : MEMBER

 

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

(Formerly shown as Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd),                                               

Old Mumbai-Pune Highway,                                            : APPELLANT

Akurdi, Pune 411 035.

 

(By Adv:M/s Philip T. Varghese, P.Balakrishnan & Others)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Shahul Hameed,

R/by his Power of Attorney Holder-

Abdullakoya Haji, Maliyekkal House,

Meenadathur.P.O, Via Thanalur-676 307.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENT

2. K.V.R.Bikes,

Naduvilangadi, Tirur-676 107.

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.199/12 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated February 04, 2014 directing the opposite party to return the two wheeler bearing registration No.KL/55-H-8276 to the complainant if the complainant pays Rs.40,000/- to him towards the arrears of loan amount within one month.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant availed a loan from the 1^st opposite party for purchasing a two wheeler Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No. KL/55-H-8276.  The loan amount was Rs.51,500/- it has to be repaid in 10 monthly instalments for Rs.2031/- each.  When he has committed default the first opposite party seized the vehicle and insisted for payment of the entire instalments for release of the vehicle.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint praying for a direction directing the 1^st opposite party to release the vehicle to him.

3.      The 1^st opposite party is Bajaj Auto Finance, Mumbai, 2^nd opposite party is KVR Bikes, Naduvilangadi, Tirur.   Only the first opposite party contested the matter before the Forum.  The first opposite party filed version before the Forum contending thus:-

The loan amount sanctioned was Rs.73,116/- including financial charges of Rs.21,616/- for 24 months tenure.  An agreement was also executed.  Monthly instalment was Rs.2031/-.  The contract period was for 36 months.  Complainant was a chronic defaulter.  Therefore complainant surrendered the vehicle to the first opposite party.  It is not correct to say that first opposite party illegally seized the vehicle.  As on February 07, 2013 Rs.22,179/- is due from the complainant.  If complainant is ready to pay that amount and further instalments duly, first opposite party is prepared to hand over possession of the vehicle to the complainant.

4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 series were marked.  No evidence was adduced by the contesting first opposite party.  Forum on an appreciation of evidence found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party and directed him to return the vehicle to the complainant on payment of Rs.40,000/-  First opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard the counsel for the appellant.  Complainant remained absent before this Commission.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      The Forum directed the first opposite party to return the vehicle to the complainant on payment of Rs.40,000/- within one month.  The Forum has passed the order in February 2014.  Even now the complainant has not paid that amount.  Therefore the first opposite party is at liberty to sell the vehicle in auction and adjust that amount towards the amount due from the complainant.

In the result the appeal is allowed to the above extent.  No costs.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.