BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 129 of 2021      

                                                          Date of Institution: 19.07.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:   13.09.2023. 

Rajesh Kumar, aged about 27 years son of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, resident of Gali Durga Mandir, Khairpur, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

Bajaj Finance Limited Sirsa, office situated at Dabwali Road, near State Bank of India, through its Manager/ Incharge/ authorized officer.

                                                                  ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

         SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.                     

        SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………….MEMBER                

Present:         Sh. Shankar Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that op is a limited company and it is having its different offices/ branches in different cities including one at Sirsa. The op company is doing the finance business and complainant is customer of op and his customer number is 2030 4000 27177239 and in this regard the op company has issued EMI card in the sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant which is valid from March, 2016 to March, 2026. That op had promised through above said card to give financial help to the needy person i.e. complainant in purchasing daily used items for house hold requirement i.e. refrigerator, washing machine and television etc. It is further averred that the aim and object of the op’s company is to help the needy customers especially of middle class and having normal income in easy purchase of daily used items by paying the amount of price of the goods in easy installments out of their income who are unable to pay the lump sum amounts  for the purchased items. That op company had promised the complainant to give 84% off in the purchase of refrigerator with the offer price of Rs.7500/- as mentioned in the scheme/ pamphlet published by op’s company. It is further averred that accordingly the complainant got booked his refrigerator on 28.09.2020 vide order number 1002322188. The op company on the same day got withdrawn an amount of Rs.6000/- from the account of complainant. That thereafter complainant went at the shop of the dealer of op’s company namely Rama Electronics, Sirsa and the dealer told the complainant that op company has not sent the amount so far to him, therefore, the dealer refused to give refrigerator to the complainant. The complainant contacted the official of the op’s company in this regard who told him that his order has been got cancelled by op’s company without any information to the complainant and amount has been deposited into his account. That due to above said act and conduct of the op’s company the op has insulted and harassed the complainant without any fault on his part and has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the op’s company on 27.10.2020 but to no effect. That op’s company has totally refused to admit the claim of complainant despite several requests and despite issuance of legal notice. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to get delivered the new refrigerator to the complainant with immediate effect and to continue the validity of said card for purchase of other items and also to pay compensation of the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses.

3.       On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, maintainability and that complainant is not a consumer as he has not taken any loan and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and that complainant has no cause of action against the op to file the complaint for the reasons (i) there is no relation between the parties (ii) the advertisement on the website is only an invitation to offer with terms and conditions (iii) the complainant has no rights to enforce that invitation to offer on Bajaj Finance Limited which is made by the dealer (iv) after seeing the invitation to offer, complainant has made offer and same has not been accepted for the reason that the confirmation of the same was not given by the dealer, hence there is no privity of contract between the complainant and op. Moreover, complainant is not a consumer as the op has not sold any product or services to the complainant and moreover complainant has not paid any amount/ consideration to the op. The complainant has just given offer to buy the product seen by him on the website as per advertisement which is only just an invitation to offer.

4.       On merits, it is submitted that op is a non banking financial company which provides various types of loans such as consumer finance, small and medium-sized enterprises and commercial lending etc. Bajaj Finserv Direct Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BFDL” who is a separate entity is providing Diversified Financial Services & e Commerce Open Architecture Marketplace “B Markets) for loans, cards, insurance, investments, payments & lifestyle products. As per BFDL’s arrangement with various dealers/ manufacturers/ merchants/ partners (Sellers) BFDL is providing its B Markets platform to them to sell their products and/or services. Price/ value of the products and/ or services which are being sold at B Markets are solely decided and offered by the Sellers and BFDL has nothing to do with it. Further through such platform, customers can purchase such products and/ or services by availing the loan through Existing Member Identification Network Card (EMI Card) from this op i.e. Bajaj Finance Limited. In this regard the customers have to place the order of the particular product/ services, which BFDL forward to the respective seller for its confirmation. Upon receipt of the confirmation from respective seller, BFDL forward the request to Bajaj Finance Limited to book the loan and disburse the invoice amount to the seller. However, again BFDL has nothing to do with sanctioning and disbursement of loan which is being availed by the customers to purchase products and/ or services from B Markets. It is further submitted that to sanction the loan is solely decided by the op relying on the credentials and CIBIL score of the respective customers and post receipt of confirmation about sale of products and/ or services from sellers. The Sellers are free to decide at which rate they are selling their products and/or services. Further before placing any order on B Markets, the Customer has to mandatorily go through eStore policies and applicable terms and conditions and accept it. As per the Order Process which is reflecting under the eStore policy, customer is clearly informed that “when the seller confirms your order, it shall be considered confirmed.”  It is further submitted that in this case in the month of September, 2020 the dealer namely Rama Electronics, Sirsa had uploaded sell offer of a 360 liters refrigerator at discounted rate of Rs.7500/- which complainant had decided to purchase. Accordingly on 28.09.2020 complainant had submitted his order request on B Markets by completing all requisite formalities. Upon receipt of order request BFDL has sent a confirmation request to the Dealer Rama Electronics, Sirsa. However, Dealer has not confirmed the order placed by the complainant, hence loan disbursement request was not forwarded to op to book the loan and disburse the invoice amount to the dealer. It is further submitted that since the dealer failed to confirm the said product, the order stood cancelled and the communication with regard to the cancellation was duly informed to the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant is holding Bajaj Existing Member Identification Network Card (EMI Card). Based on said card he can avail hassle free loans to the extent of Rs.40,000/- from op without providing any further KYC as well as the details of the complainant are already recorded in OP’s system and no further documentation is required in such cases. The order was placed successfully on eStore, out of the total price of the product Rs.6000/- was blocked on the OP’s system towards the EMI card and the balance amount of Rs.1500/- was supposed to be paid by complainant being down payment to the dealer at the time of delivery of the refrigerator. However, payment of Rs.1500/- was subject to confirmation of the order by the dealer which in this case never happened. Further the amount of Rs.6000/- which was blocked was also restored to the complainant’s EMI Card limit on 02.10.2020 due to the cancellation of the order by the dealer and screen shot is annexed herewith. It is further submitted that as neither the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.6000/- nor same has been withdrawn by the op, hence same has been specifically and vehemently denied. Further, op had duly sent the SMS to the complainant on his registered mobile number and informed the complainant about the cancellation and release of loan limit. It is further submitted that complainant has purchased a new refrigerator of Samsung company from another dealer Singhs Electronics in February, 2021 and subsequently availed loan of Rs.29,880/- from this op vide loan account number 5520CDGS167669. Hence there stands no cause of action as the complainant herein has a malafide intention to extort money from this op when he has already purchased a new refrigerator and has got ulterior motive to file a false complaint against op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.     

5.       The complainant in evidence has tendered copies of documents i.e. legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, emails Ex.C3 to Ex.C10 and  his affidavit as Ex.C12.

6.       On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg, authorized representative as Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents i.e. order process/ e store policies Ex.R1 and relevant statement Ex.R2.

7.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

8.       It is the specific stand of the op that in the month of September, 2020 the dealer namely Rama Electronics, Sirsa had uploaded sell offer of a 360 liters refrigerator at discounted rate of Rs.7500/- which complainant had decided to purchase and accordingly on 28.09.2020 complainant had submitted his order request vide no. 027269893195 on B markets by completing all requisite formalities and upon receipt of order request BFDL has sent a confirmation request to the Dealer Rama Electronics, Sirsa. It is further specific version of op that however dealer has not confirmed the order placed by the complainant, hence loan disbursement request was not forwarded to op to book the loan and disburse amount to the dealer and since the dealer failed to confirm the said product, the order stood cancelled and the communication with regards to the cancellation was duly informed to the complainant. From the emails sent by op to the complainant which is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, it is evident that the op informed the complainant that his order for Liebherr 346 L 4 Star Frost Free Double door refrigerator has been placed and will be confirmed shortly by the dealer. The op has also placed on file order process document as Ex.R1 in which also it is specifically mentioned that your order shall be considered as placed and further, when the seller confirms your order, it shall be considered confirmed. So, it is proved on record that it was the dealer who had to confirm the order. Since the order was not confirmed by the dealer, therefore, the amount of Rs.6000/- as loan amount which was blocked was also restored to the complainant’s EMI card limit on 02.10.2020 due to cancellation of the order by the dealer. It has also been specifically asserted by op that complainant had purchased a new refrigerator of Samsung company from another dealer i.e. Singhs Electronics in February, 2021 and subsequently availed loan of Rs.29,880/- from op vide loan account no. 5520CDGS167669. Since the above said order was not confirmed by the dealer and was cancelled by the dealer and all the stock has already been sold as per affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg and complainant has already purchased another refrigerator through loan facility provided by op, therefore, no cause of action arises to the complainant to file complaint against the op and complaint against op is not maintainable at all because op is providing loan facility only to the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove his case against the op and has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of op. Moreover, complainant has also suppressed the fact that he has already purchased a refrigerator in February, 2021 through loan facility provided by op and as such complaint deserves dismissal.

9.       In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced:                   Member      Member                President,

Dated: 13.09.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Commission, Sirsa.