State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divakar Rao Lingam Rajahmundry 533 103. vs Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd Visakhapatnam ... on 2 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A 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 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Honble 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.