BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.81/2016.
Date of instt.: 21.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 19.01.2017.
Vinod Kumar Nanda S/o Sh. Narain Dass Nanda, age about 38 years R/o H.No.574/4, Subhash Nagar Khurana Road, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Modern Electronics, Park Road, Kaithal through its proprietor.
- Bajaj Finance Ltd., First Floor, above global sanitary and tiles, Opp. R.K.S.D. College, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager/Cashier-cum-Customer Support Officer/An authorized agent.
- Bajaj Finance Ltd., fourth floor, Bajaj Finance, Corporate Office, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. C.K.Ranga, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 exparte.
Sh. Ankur Dhiman, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased an product of LED make Philps, model 39 PEL, 3850 for sum of Rs.35,000/- on credit basis from Op No.1 which was financed by Op No.2. It is alleged that the complainant was to pay monthly instalment of Rs.3490/- as per loan term sheet. It is further alleged that the complainant is account-holder of IDBI bank bearing No.0734104000020989. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the monthly instalment on dt. 30.12.2015, 31.01.2016 and 01.03.2016 of Rs.3490/- each before the due date of withdrawal by the Op No.2. It is further alleged that on 19.02.2016 and 03.02.2016, the complainant obtained his statement of account from the IDBI bank, then he came to know that the Op No.2 had withdrawn Rs.2754/- & Rs.3490/- on 02.02.2016, Rs.2754/- & Rs.3490/- on 02.03.2016, Rs.3490/- on 22.02.2016 and Rs.225/- on 12.02.2016. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 regarding the withdrawal of illegal amount from the account of complainant but the Op No.2 failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and on 15.02.2016, the Op No.2 deposited Rs.2754/- in the account of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared before this forum, whereas initially Op No.1 appeared through counsel but on 02.06.2016, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 made statement that he has no instruction to appear on behalf of Op No.1, so, Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 02.06.2016. Ops No.2 & 3 filed joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; it is stated that the complainant had purchased a Philip-LED from the Op No.1 and availed a loan from the Ops No.2 & 3 vide loan agreement No.5930CD17166391 dt. 20.11.2016 for an amount of Rs.34,889/- wherein the tenure was 10 months and the monthly EMI was Rs.3490/-; that with regards to the excess amount deducted, due to an inadvertent technical error in the system, the banking details were not updated properly and the amount of Rs.2754/- as alleged by the complainant in the complaint, which belongs to some another customer got deducted from the complainant’s loan account twice dt. 02.01.2016 and 02.02.2016; that the said error has been rectified in the system of the answering Ops and the amount so deducted of Rs.2754/- twice has been refunded to the complainant in his bank account vide bank account No.0734104000020989 of IDBI Bank via loan account No.5930CD17166391 vide UTR No.440UI6046005887 dt. 13.02.2016 and UTR No.440UI6107236511 dt. 16.04.2016. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and Mark-CA to Mark-CG and closed evidence on 27.09.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Mark-R1 & Mark-R2 and closed evidence on 21.10.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a product of LED make Philps for sum of Rs.35,000/- from Op No.1 on credit basis to be paid on monthly instalment of Rs.3490/- per month. The complainant is an account-holder of IDBI bank bearing No.0734104000020989. According to the terms of the loan, the Op No.2 had to withdraw the monthly instalment of Rs.3490/- on 2nd day of every month from the account of complainant. The complainant alleges that the Op No.2 has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2754/- on 02.01.2016; Rs.2754 and Rs.3490/- on 02.02.2016; Rs.2754 and Rs.3490/- on 02.03.2016; Rs.3490/- on 22.02.2016 and Rs.225/- on 12.02.2016 from the account of complainant without the will and consent of the complainant. To support his contention, the complainant referred the bank statement, Mark-CE. On the other hand, the Ops No.2 & 3 have admitted in their reply that the monthly EMI for the loan account in question of the complainant was Rs.3490/-. With regard to excess deduction, the Ops No.2 & 3 also admitted that the same was deducted due to an inadvertent technical error in the system. The Ops no.2 & 3 admitted the deductions of Rs.2754/- only twice i.e. on 02.01.2016 and 02.02.2016 regarding which they said that the same have been refunded on 13.02.2016 and 16.04.2016 and supported their versions from statement of account, Ex.R1. The Ops No.2 & 3 have stated nothing about the deduction of Rs.2754/- on 02.03.2016, whereas regarding the deduction of Rs.225/-, the Ops No.2 & 3 stated that there are no adverse entry seen on their part and the complainant should take the matter with the concerned bank as the same was deducted towards Dirdb charges as is clear from the document, Mark-CE.
6. As already stated above, the Ops No.2 & 3 neither stated anything regarding the amount of Rs.2754/- deducted on 02.03.206 nor refunded the same. So, in the circumstance, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the said amount from the Ops No.2 & 3 which was withdrawn extra and the same has not been refunded by the Ops No.2 & 3. Hence, the Ops No.2 & 3 are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops No.2 & 3 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.2754/- deducted on 02.03.2016 from the account of complainant, alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from 02.03.2016 till its realization. The Ops No.2 & 3 are also burdened to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.19.01.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
