PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                        CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 228/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sudhansu Kumar Panda, S/O-Late D.G. Panda

R/O-Sadar, Ainthapali, Near Lipi Gas, Kainsir Road,

Ps/PO-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.   ………………..Complainant

                             Vrs

1. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Digital,

First and Second Floor, Danipali, Sambalpur Town,

Sambalpur-768004 Store Cont. No. 9324406520/9324407468

2. RRL digital DC Olatpur, Cuttack

Dhadhichi Vihar Educational Trust, Vidya-Vihar Plot No. 3,

Mauza Village- Deuli, Ps-Olatpur

Cuttack-754010,Odisha.

3. The Branch Manager, IDFC FIRST Bank

At/PO-Bareipali, Dist-Sambalpur-768006

4. The IDFC FIRST Bank,

1^St Floor, Royal Tower, Link Road, Madhupatna,

Cuttack-753012,Odisha.                   ……………………………..Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P. No. 1 & 2       :- Sri S.K. Patjoshi & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.3 & 4        :- Sri. A.K. Pattanaik & Associates

Date of Filing:11.12.2023,Date of Hearing :27.02.2024,Date of Judgement : 08.04.2024

  Presented by Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, MEMBER

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is filed the case alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice in the matter of return of one E.M.I by the OPs. The Complainant intended to purchase a L.E.D and proceeded to the shop of OP No. 1 and agent of the OPs motivated the Complainant and stated that, if the Complainant purchase a L.E.D from the shop the L.G Company offer in this month that, on payment of Three E.M.I regularly without fail then the OP No. 3 return one E.M.I a sum of Rs. 17,764/- in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant being attracted to the offer purchased a L.E.D with hypothecation by the IDFC FIRST BANK, Sambalpur. The Complainant paid Rs. 76,104/- towards the cost of down payment Rs. 17,764/- as E.M.I, Total 11 installment fixed by the OP No. 3. After paid Three E.M.I the Complainant proceeded to the office of the OP No. 3 and requested to refund his one E.M.I as soon as possible but the Ops remained silent and after lapse of Three months the OPs has not complied the offer declared by the OP No. 1 at the time of purchase. After lapse of few days the Complainant again visited the office of the OP No. 3 and requested to return the E.M.I as offered by the Company but the OP stated that, at the time of purchase, the agent of the OP No. 1 & 3 not inserted the correct offer scheme Number and he has wrongly entered the non-offer scheme of the Company portal. So, the Complainant is not eligible to pay the offer amount as one E.M.I from the OPs. The Complainant has a complaint before the Higher Authority of the OP No. 3 then the OPs assured the Complainant to resolve his issue within seven days but the OPs has not complied.
2. The OP No. 3 & 4 denied all the allegation of the Complainant and mentioned in their version that non of the agent of OP No. 3 and 4 have ever told the Complainant about the offer which the Complainant is demanding. The OP No. 3 & 4 admitted in their version that the Complainant has paid his monthly EMI regularly and the Complainant asked the OP No. 3 about return of his one EMI but uttered surprise, the OP No. 3 has told him that there is no such offer by the OP No. 3 to the Complainant and the OP No. 3 also showed him the sanctioned letter issued to the Complainant at the time of sanctioning of his loan wherein there is no mentioning of any such offer to which the Complainant realized and went away.

The Version of the OP NO.1 and 2 is that the Complainant purchased one L.E.D TV from OP No. 1 and delivered through OP No. 2 and hypothecated with OP No. 3. The OP NO. 1 & 2 have no knowledge about any financial scheme offered by the OP No. 3 & 4 and the OP No. 1 & 2 were not at all involved in the financial scheme. The financial scheme totally controlled and managed by the OP No. 3 and 4. The entire clerical work (Data entry) done by the staff of the OP No. 3 and no staff or agent of this OP No. 1 & 2 involved in the clerical work including entry of the scheme numbers in the company portal.

3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that at the time of purchase, the agent of the OP No. 3 & 4 not inserted the correct offer scheme Number and he has wrongly entered the non-offer scheme of the Company portal. So, the Complainant is not eligible to pay the offer amount as one E.M.I from the Op No.1. So, the deficiency in service found against the OP No. 3 & 4 as the agents of O.P. no.3 & 4 have not entered the correct scheme offered for which the Complainant could not get the benefit.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P No. 3 & 4 are directed to return the offer amount of the Complainant of Rs. 17,764/- with 9% interest from the date of payment of third EMI, Rs. 25,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 12% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 8^th day of April, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.