vBefore the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.187 /2008
Date of Institution 15-7-2008
Date of Decision 30-5-2009
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.
…..Opposite parties
For the complainant Sh. Rajesh Guleria , Advocate
Opposite parties Exparte
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
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.
5 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
6 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced (Sushil Kukreja) President
30-5-2009
*DKM* ( Lal Singh ) ( Alkananda) Members