BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD vs Pawan Kumar Bansal

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 10. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant besides costs of the proceedings of Rs. 2,200.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle with the financial help from the opposite party No. 2, a subsidiary of the opposite party No. 3 from the opposite party No. 1 in the year 2004. Thereafter, the said vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority at Hisar which allotted him registration No. HR-44a/2014. It is the case of the complainant that he had paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party No. 2 by means of instalments. Despite the payment of the loan amount made, the opposite party No. 2 further demanded a sum of Rs. 1,393 as penalty charges which amount was also deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 5410007431 dated 7. 7. 2006 issued by the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, he demanded ''no Dues Certificate'' from the opposite party No. 2 but it was denied to him without any justification. The complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party No. 1 but without any result. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 further demanded Rs. 697 which was also deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 5410007684 dated 1. 11. 2006 but the opposite parties failed to issue the ''no Dues Certificate'' to him. Forced by these circumstances the present complaint was filed. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 filed their joint written statement wherein it was pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 is a authorised dealer of the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. They averred that the dispute with regard to the payment of the loan amount to the opposite party No. 2 is between the loanee and financier and the opposite party No. 3 had no connection with the finance activities and accordingly it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement stated that the complainant had made the last payment of the loan amount on 1. 11. 2006 and after verifying the account, N. O. C. was issued to him. It was further stated that the delay occurred in issuance of the NOC to the complainant because it was to be received from the Head Office at Pune and thereafter intimation was given to the complainant to collect the same but he himself did not come forward to receive the same and for that reason the complaint deserved to be rejected. Taking into account the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum returned a firm finding that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had withheld the issuance of ''no Dues Certificate'' without any justified reasons. It was also concluded that after the filing of the complaint they had issued incomplete ''no Dues Certificate'' with the result that under the directions of the District Forum "no Dues Certificate" Ex. R-3 containing full particulars was issued on 30. 5. 2007 and the same was received by the complainant on 15. 6. 2007. Consequently, taking into account the period of delay, harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant the above stated compensation and cost was awarded as per order dated 4. 10. 2007. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has been heard at length.

There is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal and the same is condoned under the circumstances of the case.

WHILE assailing the order dated 4. 10. 2007 of the District Forum it was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 that the District Forum had failed to take into consideration that the opposite parties had duly complied with the conditions of hire purchase agreement entered into between the complainant and issued the N. O. C. to him after it was received from the Head Office at Pune. It was further pointed out by him that the District Forum did not consider the stand of the complainant that the Registration Certificate was delivered to the complainant only after the last payment made to the company. The submission made as such has to be rejected out-rightly. In fact even the temporary Registration Certificate of the vehicle had been withheld by the appellant-opposite parties without any justification which amounts to malpractice because the complainant could not ply the motorcycle on road without the said temporary Registration Certificate. In fact the District Forum had not taken notice of the gravity of the lapse committed by the opposite parties on this account. It is the stand of the complainant that he had made the payment of the entire loan amount to the opposite parties including additional amount of Rs. 1,393 demanded by the opposite party No. 2 on 7. 7. 2006 and the NOC was received by the complainant on 15. 6. 2007. Therefore, the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is fully established on record. No case for interference with the order of the District Forum as such is made out from the side of the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and for that reason the order of the District Forum is sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.