M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.16 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Case.No.37/2015 by District Commission, Shahdol)

BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE –

RAHUL TAMRAKAR, BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED MATERIALS GATE, OLD SERVICE BUILDING, MUMBAI PUNE ROAD, AKURDI, PUNE. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, R/O VILLAGE PIPARIYA TEHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTT. SHAHDOL.

2. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH SOHAGPUR, DISTT. SHAHDOL .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Vijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents no.1 & 2.

O R D E R (Passed on .06.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the appellant /opposite party no.2 – Bajaj Auto Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shahdol (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.37/2015, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by complainant / respondent no.1

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant / respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) had availed loan regarding purchase of motorcycle – Bajaj Platina and the same was financed through the appellant. EMI of Rs.2,252/- was agreed to be paid per month. The complainant had chosen Post Dated Cheques (PDC) as an installment repayment mode and for this had issued 17 duly filled and signed cheques to the appellant. The complainant alleged that a cheque no.003874 dated 12.09.2013 for Rs.2,252/- was presented and got returned as unpaid on 13.09.2013 with remark on return memo as “Insufficient Funds”. Due to dishonor of the said cheque the complainant was imposed penalty of Rs.500/-. The complainant alleged that the act of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service since there was sufficient balance in his account. He therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the appellant and filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party no.1 / respondent no.2 – Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) resisted the complaint and stated that the complainant has not impleaded the concerned branch of Central Bank of India. There is no liability on the Bank in the instant matter and therefore, the complaint against it be dismissed.

4. The appellant submitted that since the cheque was returned with remark as “Insufficient Funds” amount of Rs.500/- as bouncing charges were obtained from the complainant. Hence, there has been no deficiency in service on part of the appellant.

5. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,752/- to the complainant within a period of one month with interest @ 8% p.a. from 14.09.2013 till payment. In addition compensation of Rs.1,500/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the subject cheque was unpaid and returned on 13.09.2013 with a remark - “Insufficient Funds”. The appellant never received the credit against said cheque from the Bank. The District Commission has committed error in passing order against the appellant and as per the allegations of the complainant that there was sufficient balance in his account, the complaint should have been allowed against the Bank where his account exists. Since there is no deficiency in service on part of the appellant, the impugned order against it be set aside.

8. The Bank before the District Commission had categorically submitted that as per the account statement cheque no.003874 got encashed on 13.09.2013. When the Bank was informed that the said cheque has bounced and was unpaid it had asked the appellant t