STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/323/2020 BHAWARLAL SOLONKI PRESENT ADDRESS - BHOPAL MP,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus BAJAJ FIN. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - BHOPAL MP,MADHYA PRADESH.

BANK OF MAHRASTRA PRESENT ADDRESS - BHOPAL MP,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: BHAWARLAL SOLONKI FOR THE RESPONDENT:

BAJAJ FIN. LTD.

DATED: 05/01/2026

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 30.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.129/2015 by District Commission Bhopal-1)

BHANWARLAL SOLANKI

S/O SHRI RAI SINGH SOLANKI,

R/O B-9 GAUTAM NAGAR,

NEW COLONY, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL(M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. MANAGER, BAJAJ FINANCE, PLOT NO.1, 2, 3 AND 7, OPPOSITE VISHAL MEGA MART, DAAMKHEDA, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.) …. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 None for the respondent no.2.

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.01.2026)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated

30.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.129/2015 whereby complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had obtained loan facility from the opposite party no.1-finance company to purchase a motorcycle for which he had given 35 cheques of Bank of Maharashtra, the opposite party no.2 to the opposite party no.1 towards repayment of loan @ Rs.1445/- monthly installment. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party no.1-finance company send the cheques for two months in one month i.e. on 08.11.2013 and 09.11.2013 for clearance in the complainant's bank account with the opposite party no.2-bank. The opposite party no.2-bank cleared those cheques and total amount of Rs.2,890/- was credited in the bank account of the opposite party no.1-finance company. It is alleged by the complainant that instead of one month's installment, the employees of the opposite party no.1- finance company illegally recovered two monthly installments in one month which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite party no.1-finance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant signed the loan agreement at the time of getting loan. He was sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.52,020/- which was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.1445/-. The complainant chose mode of repayment of loan through ECS (Electronic Clearing System). It is denied that they had obtained 35 cheques from the complainant. As per condition of loan agreement the installment was to be paid through ECS but the installment dated 08.11.2013 was not cleared through ECS to which the opposite party has filed document R-7. The complainant himself was defaulter and did not make payment since 10.07.2014. After giving recall notice by the opposite party the complainant after expiry of loan agreement deposited outstanding amount of Rs.5,772/- after one month and thereafter closing the loan account, NOC was given to him. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The opposite party no.2-bank despite service of notice remained absent and were proceeded ex-parte.

5. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant failed to prove