Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/52/2021

Mr. Kuldeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ishaan Dogra

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/52/2021
Date of Institution	:	22.1.2021
Date of Decision	:	3/1/2024

 

Mr. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Koki R/o H. No.2005, Vikas Nagar Mauli Jagran, U.T., Chandigarh 160102.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. Bajaj Finserv Limited (through its Branch Manager), SCO No.57-58-59, Sector 17-A, U.T,  Chandigarh 160017.
2. Sargam Electronics, (through its general Manager) SCO NO.313-314, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh U.T., Chandigarh 160035.        

IInd address:

103, Sharma Complex A-2, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Pincode 110092.

IIIrd address:

Commercial complex Garg Trade Centre Dr. KN Katju Marg, Sector 11E, Rohini, Delhi PINCODE110085.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	OP No.2, exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 14.10.2019 the complainant has  purchased a refrigerator for his personal use from OP No.2  by paying an amount of Rs.78,242/-  and the copy of invoice is annexed as Annexure C-1. At the time of purchasing the subject refrigerator as it was Dussehra festival, various schemes were floated by the OP No.2 w.e.f.  29.9.2019  to 4.11.2019 on various  discounts and cash backs  on purchase of their products to the tune of Rs.7500/-, Big Bazar vouchers worth Rs.6000/- , Netflix subscription worth Rs.1500/- and book my show vouchers worth Rs.2000/- offered by OPs on purchase of products worth Rs.45,000/-  or more regarding which pamphlet were also issued. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-2.  The complainant had purchased the said goods on consumer durable loans for a period of 12 months  from OP No.1, therefore, both sales executives of OPs assured the complainant that the aforesaid rewards i.e. cash back voucher and subscription will be credited in the ‘Mobiwik E-wallet mobile application’  after deduction of 3 installments from the complainant’s loan account, i.e. within 90 days from the date of purchase of product  and an additional amount to the tune of Rs.700/-  was also paid by the complainant to come under the ambit of the aforesaid scheme. After going through the loan account, the complainant has come to know that an amount of Rs.1588/-   was added to the existing consumer durable loan without his consent. However, when the aforesaid cash back and other benefits which the complainant was entitled  were not credited in the account of the complainant, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs on 1.9.2020 vide Annexure C-4.  The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action. On merits admitted that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from OP No.2 and subsequently had availed loan from the answering OP for  Rs.78,248/-  with a monthly EMI of Rs.6521/- payable in 12 equal monthly installments  commencing from 1.12.2019 and the complainant had paid the said amount on due date except one EMI regarding which Rs.450/- was levied as bouncing charges as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  It is further alleged that in fact the complainant was only entitled for cash back in case he make payment through RBL credit card  and in this case as he has not made payment through RBL payment credit card , he is not entitled for 10% of the cash back. So far as the other offers are concerned the same relate to OP No.2 and the answering OP has nothing to do with the same. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2  was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it  was proceeded against ex-parte on 11.11.2022.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  complainant and contesting OP No.1 that the complainant has purchased  the subject refrigerator from OP No.2 by getting the same financed from OP No.1  as is also evident from tax invoice Annexure C-1 and through Annexure C-2 certain offers were made by OP No.2 qua cash back of Rs.7500/- and other awards on the productive value of Rs.45000/-  on contribution of Rs.700/-  by the purchaser by issuing voucher of  Big Bazar to  the tune of Rs.6000/-, Rs.1500/- of Netflix and Rs.2000 for book my show  making the cash back amount to the tune of Rs.9500/- on account of assurance given to the complainant by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or the complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable as is the defence of the OP No.1.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-2 clearly indicates that the maximum cash back of Rs.7500/-  was available to the purchaser  if payment is made through RBL credit card. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“Cash back applicable only on approval and acceptance of RBL Credit Card”

3. In the case in hand it is apparent from Annexure C-1 that the complainant  has not  made any payment through RBL credit card rather it shows zero payment through  credit card  and payment has been made through cash to the tune of Rs.24,000/-  and by obtaining loan from OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.49,242/-. Thus, it stands proved on record that the complainant is not eligible for  cash back regarding which even reference  is also made in the delivery order and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against OP No.1 as the said offer was only made available to the customers by OP No.1 subject to payment made through RBL credit card which has not been made by complainant in the present case.
4. So far as rewards which were offered by OP No.2 through pamphlet Annexure C-2 is concerned,  as it stands proved on record that the subject offer exclusively was made available by OP No.2  to those customers who paid
   Rs.700/- as an additional amount  and in the case in hand as it stands proved on record that OP No.2 charged an amount of Rs.700/-  from the complainant for cash back offer i.e. Rs.6000/- for big bazaar,  Rs.1500/- for Netflix  and Rs.2000/- for book my show totaling to Rs.9500/- as is also evident from Annexure C-2 and the said amount has not been paid by OP No.2 to the complainant till date, the aforesaid act of OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP No.2. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.2 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹9500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 16.1.2020 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Complaint against OP No.1 stands dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 3/1/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member