Babu Khan, aged about 31 years - Complainant(s)


The Chief Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd.- AF - Opp.Party(s)

M. A. Khan

31 Oct 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/122/2022
( Date of Filing : 12 Dec 2022 )
1. Babu Khan, aged about 31 years
S/o:-Alam Khan, At:- Gousiyanagar, Po/P.S:- Puruna Bazar, Dist:-Bhadrak, Odisha
1. The Chief Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd.- AF
C/o:- Bajaj Auto Ltd., Old Mumbai - Pune Road, Akrudi, Pune- 411035 (Maharashtra).
2. The Regional Manage, Bajaj Finance Ltd.
1st Floor, KI Plaza, Plot No. 504, In front of Indian Petrol Pump, Madhusudan Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, Pin-751012.
Dated : 31 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement



Consumer Complaint No. 122 of 2022.

                                                                                                                                             Date of hearing     :   10.10.2023.   

  Date of order                 :   31.10.2023.

Dated the 31st day of October 2023.

       Babu Khan, S/o:-Alam Khan,

                   At:-Gousiyanagar, Po/P.S:- Puruna Bazar,

      Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha.  

                                                                                      …………..  Complainant.


  1. The Chief Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd.-AF,

           C/o:- Bajaj Auto Ltd., Old Mumbai-Pune Road,                                                                                                                                                 Akrudi, Pune-411035 (Maharashtra).


  1. The Regional Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd.,                                                                                                                                           1st Floor, KI Plaza, Plot No.504, In-front of Indian

          Petrol Pump, Madhusudan Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

         Odisha, Pin-751012.

.…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.


          1.  Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

          2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

For the Complainant :Muktar Ali Khan, Advocate.

For the Opp. Parties  :  Sri Basant Ku. Mohanaty, Advocate.


                                                J U D G M E N T.



          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Fact of the case is that, the complainant has purchased a Platina-110-CBS Motorcycle of Bajaj Auto Ltd. bearing Regd. No.OD-22N-5940 having Chasis No.-MD2A76AYOJRJ79073 & Engine No.-PFYRJJ28270 from Sanskar Bajaj at Charampa, Bhadrak on being financed by O.Ps vide Loan Agreement No.-L2WBHA06823328 on dtd.11.09.2019.  The monthly installments was fixed Rs.2,393/- & the tenure was fixed from 5th March 2019 to 5th August 2022, and the payment mode was direct cash. Complainant received the tax invoice, R.C. particulars, insurance papers etc. from the showroom through postal & since that day complainant was using the vehicle. Complainant was paying the monthly installment regularly from dtd.08.03.2019 till 28.02.2020. But due to Corona pandemic since March 2020 to June 2020 complainant could not pay the EMI on account of shut down & lock down.  After recession of corona pandemic the complainant was regularly paying the EMI to the O.Ps & obtaining the receipt. On 30.07.2022, complainant has paid the installment amount for the last time & obtained receipt for the same. On 13.09.2022, while complainant was proceeding towards his house from Randhia, all of a sudden some unknown persons obstructed his vehicle and by using their muscle power seized his motorcycle from him. On being asked they told that they are authorized by O.Ps to seize the vehicle as complainant is a defaulter. Complainant requested them he is ready to pay the outstanding amount, if any such amount was pending against the complainant. But they did not pay any heed to his request and took way the vehicle from him and issued a seizure receipt without his signature. Complainant contacted the showroom for assistance but showroom owner of Sanskar Bajaj express his inability & told him to contact the regional office of Bajaj O.P.No.2. But O.P.2 remains callous towards his grievance & played hide & seek with him & did not inform about status of his vehicle & on 07.12.2022 refused to entertain. O.Ps have illegally seized the vehicle which is nothing but deficiency in service & unfair trade practice for they are liable to pay compensation for mental agony & torture. Complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to deliver the custody of aforesaid vehicle to the complainant or in alternative pay the entire amount to the complainant which he has paid. O.Ps be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony & Rs.5,000/- for litigation charges.

O.Ps submit that, the complainant approached the O.Ps & requested for financial facility for purchase of two wheeler vehicle make PLATINA 110 CBS BS IV. Considering the request & credentials of the complainant, the O.Ps agreed to extend financial facility of Rs.86,148/- (which includes financial charges of Rs.28,648/-), the subject loan was extended for the period of 36 months with an EMIs of Rs.2,393/- starting from 05.03.2019 later, as per the mutual understanding, complainant in the capacity of applicant has signed & executed a loan Agreement No.L2WBHA06823328. Complainant was irregular to repay the monthly loan installment as per the agreed terms & conditions of loan agreement, even on repeated requests reminders the complainant has not taken any steps to regularize/close the loan account. Complainant was in due of Rs.9,166/- towards other dues along with Rs.31,109/- towards future payable installments.  Constrained  by the default attitude of complainant with no alternative the O.Ps issued loan recall notice dtd.07.07.2021 through Regd. Post & informed the complainant to remit the outstanding of Rs.50,980/-.  O.Ps further states that as on 03.10.2022 complainant has remitted the partial amount of Rs.83,762/- & was in dues of Rs.7,768/- towards EMI Arrear & Rs.22,993/- towards other dues. After taking possession of the vehicle & in due compliance of law, O.Ps caused a pre-sale intimation notice dtd.03.10.2022 through registered post & informed complainant to remit outstanding dues of Rs.30,762/-&  in turn to take back the custody of the vehicle but complainant has not taken any steps to approach the O.Ps for remittance of outstanding dues & to take back of the custody of vehicle on closure of the said loan. Complainant has no any cause of action for filing this complaint against the O.Ps as there was no any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

Having heard the rival contentions this commission thinks it proper to frame the following issues to be answered during adjudication of the present consumer.


  1. What amount the complainant has repaid against the loan till the vehicle was repossessed by these OPs?
  2. Whether the vehicle was repossessed by these OPs before the tenure of the loan was over?
  3. Whether these OPs have committed atrocity by hastily putting the vehicle in to auction?
  4. Whether these OPs have committed unfair trade practice & deficiency in service?
  5. Whether the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment for the acts of these OPs?
  6. If yes, then to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Issue No. 1, 2 & 3 are taken together and discussed as below. The case vehicle was priced at Rs. 61587/- out of which Rs. 7052/- was paid by the complainant as down payment and rest Rs. Rs.54,535/- was the amount which the complainant has taken loan from the OP. An amount of Rs.2,965/- was taken by the OP which was not explained as to on which head they had taken the amount. The rate of interest was 16.6% as per the loan agreement. Even if the complainant has signed the agreement scripted in English language in the vernacular language admitting the rate of interest as 16.6% per annum, it is felt that it is exorbitantly high. Even in that high rate of interest the complainant would have paid Rs. 86, 148/- at the rate of Rs. 2393/- per EMI for 36 EMIs, had he paid all those EMIs in time. But, these OPs have provided a financial assistance of Rs. 54,535/-. The tenure of the loan repayment was 36 EMIs i.e. 3 years. So the interest @ 16.6% even Rs.27,158/- for 3 years. So, the Principal Rs. 54,535/- + Interest Rs. 27,158/- becomes Rs. 81,693/- which would have been repaid by the complainant by 05/03/2022. But after the Covid-19 economic debacle, the loan was admittedly extended with a moratorium period as per RBI Guidelines which extended for another 6 months that makes the tenure lengthier up to 05/09/2022. The complainant has repaid Rs. 81,362/- by 30/07/2022 against a due of Rs. 81,693/-. That is only an amount of Rs.331/- less.  But these OPs have repossessed the case vehicle on 13/09/2022, 8 days after the tenure of the loan is over and admittedly sold the vehicle for Rs.34,500/- to some other intending auction purchaser. So, all these three issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.4 & 5 are taken together and discussed as below. Firstly, these OPs have taken an amount of Rs.2,965/- from the complainant at the time of finance without any clarity as to on which head they had taken the said amount! Secondly, they had extended financial assistance of Rs. 54,535/- but they had charged interest over Rs.57,500/-. Thirdly, these OPs had received Rs. 81,362/- by 30/07/2022 against the actual claim of Rs. 81,693/- which is to be repaid by 05/09/2022 but they had repossessed the vehicle just after 8 days of end of the loan tenure. Lastly, they have illegally gained another Rs.34,500/ after getting back their actual claim. These OPs have charged exorbitantly high interest from the boorish & unschooled person at the rate of 16.65 per annum and that high rate of interest should include all their expenses like documentation charges, stockyard charges, repossession charges and resale formalities. But these OPs aver that they have deducted Rs.3738/- from the surplus auction amount for stock yard charges and resale formalities and paid the complainant the rest Rs. 1968/- in his account. But they failed to put forth an iota of evidence in support of their payment of rest Rs. 1968/- in the account of complainant. From these above discussions, there remains no doubt in the mind of this commission that these OPs have indulged not only deficiency in service but also in unfair trade practice. These OPs have taken advantage of the lack of knowledge, trend and upbeat of the complainant. A 2’ wheeler for a lower middle class mason like the complainant is like an extension of his legs. He used to go to his work by help of the case vehicle. He goes in look for the work by his 2’ wheeler. Such repossession by these OPs,  particularly when he had almost repaid the whole loan amount is illegal and unfair trade practice. Such illegal act of these OPs had put the complainant into stress, harassment and mental agony. So Issue No.4 & 5 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.

Lastly, so far as Issue No.6 is concerned, in this instant case, the case vehicle has already been sold to somebody else by these OPs, the said vehicle can not be ordered to be given back to the complainant as prayed. Similarly, the entire amount which the complainant has paid to the OPs cannot be ordered to be refunded to the complainant as he had used the case vehicle for more than 3 years. The complainant is entitled to be adequately compensated for his loss along with compensation & cost for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by these OPs. So Issue No.6 is also answered in favour of the complainant.

O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is allowed. These O.Ps are directed to refund the entire auction amount i.e. Rs.34,500/- along with another Rs.20,000/- towards humiliation, suffering and mental agony and a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order; failing which these O.Ps shall be liable to pay the awarded amount with an interest of 6% till the actual date of payment.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of October 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.