BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD. Vs. BHUPINDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant with a view to purchasing a Bajaj Boxer bike amounting to about Rs. 36,000/ -, obtained a loan from the petitioner. The loan of Rs. 31,000/ - was sanctioned bearing interest @11.9% p.a. and the respondent was to repay this amount alongwith interest at the instalment of Rs. 2,891/ - per month for a period of one year. Admittedly there were continuous defaults and the amount was not paid even after expiry of over 2 years. When a notice was sent on 1 -1 -2004 demanding Rs. 7,280/ - besides penal interest, the respondent/complainant deposited

(3.) WE have very carefully gone through the material on record and also heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. Basic facts are not disputed, hence are not being reproduced. It is the plea of the petitioner that the seizure of the vehicle was after due service of notice as envisaged in the agreement when despite service of notice the amount was not paid they seized the vehicle as per terms of the agreement, which was auctioned for Rs. 9,850/ -. Despite this there is certain amount outstanding against the respondent / complainant. Both the lower Courts erred in not appreciating the terms of the agreement and had reached on its own conclusion. The amicus appointed by us on behalf of the respondent argued vehemently that the petitioner could not have seized the vehicle for three good reasons. First, that after receipt of the first notice dated 1 -1 -2004, certain amounts were deposited, hence before repossession of the vehicle a fresh notice should have been given. Second, the complainant approached the petitioner immediately after the repossession of the vehicle for making the payment but this was not accepted and thirdly no amount could be said to be outstanding against him as the petitioner sold the vehicle at a very low amount. The vehicle should have fetched a much better price as the bike had run for only 2 1/2 years and was in a good condition.