DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No. 424

 Instituted on:   28.10.2020

                                                                   Decided on:     01.03.2021

Kuldeep Singh son of Rameshwar Dass, resident of Village Panwan, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Bajaj Finserv Limited, Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune 410035, Maharashtra (India) Limited through its Managing Director.

2.             Singla Mobile Care, Near Baba Pir, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh through its Proprietor.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:                   :Shri  J.S.Kaler,Adv.              

For the OPs                        :Exparte.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                FACTS

1.             Shri Kuldeep Singh,  complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant  approached OP number 1 and inquired about the mobile set and on inquiry the OP number 2 disclosed the complainant that he can avail offers of the Bajaj Finserv, which are very beneficial for the person who purchases the mobile set on instalments. Op number 2 further disclosed that if complainant select the offer of OP number 1 and 2 he would receive a cash back of Rs.6000/- by paying Rs.600/- extra.  Further case of the complainant is that as per the advice of the OP number 2, the complainant selected the offer of OP number 1 and 2 and paid three EMIs of Rs.8400/- as advance and further paid Rs.600/- for cash back, Rs.30/- for the civil transaction, Rs.282/- for computer up front interest, Rs.449/- for EMI card charge and Rs.117/- for service charges and the OP issued loan account number Y51RDPFQ253896.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid the instalments of Rs.2800/- per month regularly to the OPs number 1 and 2, but till date the Ops have failed to pay the cash back of Rs.6000/-.  As such, the complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 7.7.2020 upon the OPs, but despite that cash back amount was not paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant cash back of Rs.6000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the OPs did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 bill, Ex.C-3 loan detail, Ex.C-4 legal notice, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 postal receipts and Ex.C-8 reply of legal notice and closed evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the assurance of the OPs i.e.  if the complainant selects the offer of OP number 1 and 2 then he would receive a cash back of Rs.6000/- by paying Rs.600/- extra.  Further the learned counsel has argued that as per the advice of the OP number 2, the complainant selected the offer of OP number 1 and 2 and paid three EMIs of Rs.8400/- as advance and further paid Rs.600/- for cash back, Rs.30/- for the civil transaction, Rs.282/- for computer up front interest, Rs.449/- for EMI card charge and Rs.117/- for service charges and the OP issued loan account number Y51RDPFQ253896, but the cash back of Rs.6000/- was never paid to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C-1  and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is the copy of bill issued by Singla Mobile Care, Bhawanigarh, Ex.C-3 is the detail. Ex.C-4 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 are the postal receipts.  Ex.C-8 is the reply to notice sent by Bajaj Finance Limited, wherein it is mentioned that the offer is valid for 60 days from the date of purchase and after which the voucher is no longer valid or redeemable.  As per the complainant, the complainant purchased mobile set on 30.12.2019 and the complaint was filed on 28.10.2020, so as per the condition, the offer is no longer valid for the complainant and as such the complaint deserves dismissal.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        March 1, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President