J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is initiated by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have deducted much amount from her account going beyond the agreement entered and signed by the parties.

1

The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that she purchased one LG LCD TV from Bombay Variety Store, Benachity, Durgapur through Bajaj Finance Limited-OP-2 on 12.9.2012. The cost of the said TV was of Rs. 23,200=00. Out of which the complainant paid Rs. 10,000=00 through Demand Draft and it was agreed with the Bajaj Finance that the complainant will pay Rs. 1,650=00 towards EMI in 8 installments. After purchasing the said goods the OP-2 with ill motive began to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,807=00 from the account of the complainant from the very first month towards EMI. After verification of the account the complainant observed that a huge amount of money has been deducted from the said account of the complainant by the OP-2 and for this reason she informed the matter to the OP-2 by issuing letter which was received by the OP-2 on 04.12.2012. The person concerned of the OP-2 all on a sudden came at the residence of the complainant on 20.5.2013 and threatened her with loud voice and finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to make payment of Rs. 3,300=00 on that date. The activity of the OP is illegal and also prejudicial to the interest of the complainant. The OP-2 had already deducted a sum of Rs. 1,675=00 in 12 installments towards EMI, though the OP-2 has no right to deduct the same from the account of the complainant. On different dates repeated requests were made by the complainant to the OP-2 in respect of excess payment/deduction from her account, but till filing of the complaint no action has been taken on behalf of the OP-2. Finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum due to unfair trade practice and illegal activities of the Ops praying for direction upon the Ops to refund the entire amount as taken by the Ops  towards excess payment to her, Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation towards deficiency in service and litigation cost.

The complaint has been contested by the OP-1&2 by filing written version wherein it is contended that the complainant had entered into a loan proposal on 15.9.2012 with them and availed of finance for Rs. 20,100=00 with a view to purchase the LG LCD. The monthly installment was scheduled at Rs. 1,675=00 which was payable within 12 months and the rate of interest was 0%.  At the time of availing the loan the complainant put her signature in the application form, loan term sheet, promissory note and standard terms and conditions. The complainant for making payment of the loan installment dues had issued Electronic Clearance Services mandate (ECS). The above contract was for 12 months i.e. the complaint was supposed to pay the entire

2

loan amount by 12 installments. The complainant paid 4 EMIs in advance and the said amount were adjusted with the loan amount at the fag end of the contract against installment no 9, 10, 11&12. The Ops have further submitted that in addition to loan, one extended warranty policy was taken by the complainant subject to payment of Rs. 1,050=00 which was scheduled to be paid in eight months by making payment of equal monthly installment of Rs. 132/- per month. For this reason ECS was issued by the complainant for Rs. 1,807=00 towards the EMI of the loan and Rs. 132/-towards insurance premium. In order to protect the interest of the product the complainant took the extended warranty policy schedule and the same was made by the complainant as per specific request. Certificate of insurance was issued to the complainant for Rs. 1,050=00. The Ops have mentioned that the complainant is a defaulter in respect of ECS mandate as several cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Subsequently the complainant made payment of Rs. 3,300=00 in cash on 20.5.2013 and thereafter entire loan amount along with the insurance amount has duly been paid by the complainant. Moreover, due to dishonour of several cheques penalty was imposed on the complainant for making payment or deduction for Rs. 150/- from her account and in this way the complainant had to pay Rs. 7,650=00 towards the cost of cheque bounce. After making payment of entire amount the complainant has filed this complaint with ill motive with a view to grab some money through an illegal manner. The Ops did not receive or take any amount from the complainant illegally. According to the Ops this complaint being frivolous and vexatious one and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

We have carefully perused the record along with several documents filed by the parties in support of their contention and heard argument from the ld. Counsel for the parties. The core question is to be decided whether the Ops have deducted much amount from the account of the complainant going beyond the agreement and the deduction has been made illegally or unethically. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in this complaint i.e. the complainant purchased one LG LCD TV from Bombay Variety Stores, Benachity, Durgapur on 12.9.2012, the cost of the said TV was of Rs. 23,200=00, the complainant entered into a finance agreement with the OP-2, the complainant paid initially Rs. 10,000=00 through Demand Draft, the complainant obtained extended warranty, as per agreement it was scheduled that the entire loan

3

amount will be repaid through 12 EMIs, she obtained financial assistance from the OP-2 to the tune of Rs. 20,100=00, monthly installment was settled at Rs. 1,675=00, for extended warranty the complainant obtained further financial help from the OP-2 to the tune of Rs. 1,050=00, which the complainant was agreed to pay through EMI making payment of Rs. 132=00 by eight installments, mode of loan payment was ECS, the complainant paid Rs. 3,300=00 in cash to the OP on 20.5.2013. Therefore, the complainant was under obligation for making repayment of the entire loan amount within 12 months through 12 EMIs and for extended warranty she was also under obligation for making payment of the amount through eight equal monthly installments. The allegation of the complainant is that the OP-2 has deducted  much amount from the account going beyond the agreement and according to her such action of the Ops can be termed as deficiency in service as well as unfair  trade practice. On the contrary, the contention of the Ops is that they did not deduct any farthing from the account of the complainant illegally or arbitrarily towards the repayment of the loan amount obtained by the complainant. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant did not take loan to the tune of Rs. 20,100=00. She took loan to the tune of Rs. 13,100=00, but in respect of such contention the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to show that the complainant took loan from the OP-2 to the tune of Rs. 13,100=00, not Rs. 20,100=00. During hearing it is further argued by the complainant that though primarily she wanted to obtain the facility of extended warranty, but  later she declined not to opt the said facility, so the OP-2 had arbitrarily imposed the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 1,050=00 on her shoulder which she is not liable to pay. The documents filed by the parties show that in the loan term sheet in respect of amount of Rs. 20,100=00 & Rs. 1,050=00, the complainant put her signature. Therefore, as the complainant had accepted the T&C of the loan, now she cannot travel beyond the said agreement. The OP-2 has filed entire account statement from 15.9.2012 to 16.12.2014 from which it is evident that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount. But due to check bounce the complainant had to pay Rs. 7,650=00 towards OD charges and such deduction cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops because it was the bounden duty of the complainant to keep the adequate balance in her account on the date on which the OP was at liberty to deduct the said amount towards EMI and the same was within the knowledge of the

4

complainant, but the complainant had failed to maintain her balance in the bank account properly. For this reason the complainant had to pay excess amount towards OD charges and such situation occurred due to laches on the part of the complainant. The loan account statement clearly shows that the complainant paid the entire loan amount obtained by her to the Ops and the Ops did not deduct any excess amount towards loan amount from her account. Inspite of this the complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops but we are unable to find out any deficiency or unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops as the Ops did not travel beyond the agreement signed by and between the complainant and the Ops. As the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is herby dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to costs.

                      (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                           President       

                                                                                                                      DCDRF, Burdwan

                     (Silpi Majumder)

                           Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                                                (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                                    Member   

                                                                                 DCDRF, Burdwan