DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 337/2018
D.No._______________ Dated:________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. SUHAIL AHMADS/o SH. NOOR AHMAD,
R/o H. No. 1326, GALI No. 43,
JAFRABAD, DELHI-110053. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. BALAJI COMMUNICATIONS,
262, THE GREAT INDIA PALACE,
SECTOR-38-A, NOIDA.
2. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,
4th FLOOR, BAJAJ FINSERV,
CORPORATE OFFICE: AMBEDKAR NAGAR ROAD,
VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE-411014.
ALSO AT: BAJAJ FINANCE LTD.,
THROUGH ITS M.D./MANAGER,
1st& 2nd FLOOR, (UNIT No.204, 205, 206 & 207),
V-4 PLAZA, KP BLOCK, PLOT No.16,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
ALSO AT: BAJAJ FINANCE LTD.,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
852, 8th FLOOR, AGGARWAL NETRO HEIGHT,
PLOT No.E-5, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 21.05.2018
Date of decision: 21.08.2019
CC No. 337/2018 Page 1 of 12
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPsunder Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that in the month of February-2018, the complainant was enticed by the advertisement of OP-1 and felt greatly influenced to avail the mobile handsets and accordingly, the complainant approached OP-1 to take a new mobile handset of Samsung and OP-1, claiming and pretending itself to be the authorized dealer, made extravagant claims and boasted and lured the complainant with high promises and assurances and when the complainant asked the salesman of OP-1 to show a Samsung C-9 Pro mobile handset, the salesman suggested that the Android mobile handset Samsung S-8 is far better than Samsung C-9 Pro and further more OP-1 is providing the loan facility of the mobile handset through Bajaj Finance as the complainant refused to buy Samsung S-8 for it is very expensive to the complainant. Thereafter, upon his insistent and advice the complainant decided to buy Samsung S-8 with the help of loan facility, the salesman requested the complainant to wait until the executive of Finance Com. is arrived.After around half an hour executive of HDFC Bank came and told the complainant that loan to the complainant cannot be sanctioned asthe complainant has no account in the HDFC Bank, then the
CC No. 337/2018 Page 2 of 12
salesman asked the complainant to wait further for the Executive of OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the executive of OP-2asked the complainant to provide certain documents for loan i.e.Xerox copy of aadhar card, voter ID card, PAN card and cancelled cheque of the complainant account drawn on Central Bank of India and all the above said self attested documents were provided to the executive of OP-2, after some time executive of OP-2 informed the complainant that CIBIL score/status of the complainant was negative hence, loan cannot be sanctioned.Thereafter, the complainant requested to them to return the above said documents provided for loan facility butthe executive of OP-2 replied that the file has been proceeded for cancellation, so the documents could not be returned. After that the complainant, purchased a Samsung mobile handset model C-9 PRO vide IMEI No. 356368083736497 for a sum of Rs.29,000/- in cash and a sum of Rs.6,880/- through debit card was also paid, vide Tax invoice/bill no. BALAJI/GIP/17-18-00974 dated 15.02.2018 with one year warrantee and assurance of being a genuine product and good after sale service, at the time of purchase of mobile handset, the authorized dealer assured the complainant that any problem with the mobile handset, service center will also provide sufficient services from OP-1 and since then the complainant has been using the above said mobile handset. Thecomplainant further alleged that after one month, the complainant
CC No. 337/2018 Page 3 of 12
received a message on 27.03.2018 at 3:57 P.M. on his mobile no. 9910478641 which stated that “my EMI of Rs.2,625/- for loan account no. 401DPF65365947 was due on 02.04.2018” and asimilar demand message also received on 31.03.2018 and the complainant was shocked to know that the complainant was being charged monthly for the loan that was cancelled due to his negative CIBIL Score and not sanctioned any loan to him. Thereafter, the complainant sent an e-mail to OP-2 on 03.04.2018 to resolve the disputes in which they requested to allow them additional 4-5 days to resolve the dispute and on 12.04.2018, their executive called the complainant and suggested him to visit dealer outlet i.e. OP-1 and raised the grievances. The complainant further alleged that the complainant received a call from Sh. Ravinder Aggarwal who is manager of OP-2 who informed him that a loan account no. 401DPF65365947 of Rs.21,000/- due on the complainant against an android mobile handset Moto-X purchased against Tax/invoice/bill no. BALAJI/GIP/17-18-00974 dated 15.02.2018 which neither the complainant bought nor any loan was sanctioned and the tax/invoice/bill no. BALAJI/GIP/17-18-00974 dated 15.02.2018 was the same tax invoice on which the complainant purchased Samsung C-9 Pro mobile handset in cash from OP-1. The complainant further alleged that the complainant also receivedmany calls from mobile no.7011811949 of the muscleman/recovery
CC No. 337/2018 Page 4 of 12
agent who have been mentally and physically exploiting and torturingdirectly & indirectly, by hook and crook to recover the fraudulent loan sanctioned in the name of the complainant andthey used to talk in filthy/abusive language against the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant personally visited OP-1 and OP-2 and met the concerned Senior officials and told about the fraudulent and misbehavior attitude of recovery agent/field representative/inquiry officer and assured that they will lodge a complaint against their official who cheated the complainant and forwarded the same to higher officials for proper action but no avail. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a written notice dated 19.04.2018 to OPs but no avail and the complainant further alleged that there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and OPs have cheated the complainant.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to issue No Dues Certificate (NOC) against Loan No. 401DPF65365947 and return all self-attested documents of the complainant, to direct OPs jointly or severally to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation/damages/losses suffered by the complainant and has also sought Rs.15,000/- as cost of legal expenses and miscellaneous expenses.
3. OPs have been contesting the complaint and have filed their
CC No. 337/2018 Page 5 of 12
separate written statement/reply. In the reply, OP-1 submitted that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant hadwalked in out of his own free will and desire to purchase a mobile handset andfurther submitted that they had made any extravagant claims and boasted and lured the complainant with high promises and assurance as alleged.OP-1 further submitted that the salesman of OP-1 had not suggested the complainant to buy Samsung S-8 instead of Samsung C-9 PRO as alleged by the complainant and the complainant had come to the shop of OP-1 for purchasing a mobile handset and based on his query several mobile handsets including the MOTO-X, Samsung S-8 and Samsung C-9 PRO were shown to him but based on his budget and his other requirement/usage the complainant first finalized MOTO-X but then the complainant chose to buy Samsung C-9 PRO. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 had no tie up with Bajaj Finance Ltd. and as such the question of OP-1 providing loan facility through OP-2 does not arise and OP-1 neither had taken any documents i.e. xerox copy of the aadhar card, voter ID card, PAN card and cancelled cheque from the complainant nor had asked him to provide the same to any other person and the complainanthad purchased a Samsung C-9 PRO mobile handset and since the date of purchase OP-1 has not received any complaint from the complainant about any service
CC No. 337/2018 Page 6 of 12
issue or functioning of the mobile handset purchased which clearly shows that there has been nodeficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that initially the complainant finalized MOTO X-1 and a proforma invoice issue to him but when the complainant changed his mind by Samsung C-9 PRO and requested OP-1 to issue invoice for Samsung C-9 PRO, OP-1 issued invoice for Samsung C-9 PRO to the complainant.
4. OP-2 in its written statement submitted that it provides loans to all the needy customer’s at 0% rate of interest and in this case, when the complainant approached OP-1 to purchase the mobile handset, the complainant was allured with the benefits of availing the loan and the complainant purchased one mobile handset in cash and the remaining by paying it through the debit card which is reflecting from the cash receipts and the invoice copy attached and also submitted that the complainant has purchased another mobile handset i.e. MOTO X for which the KYC documents and other credentials were handed over to OP-1 post which the loan vide loan account no. 401DPF65365947 for an amount of Rs.21,000/- on 02.09.2018 was booked and the monthly EMI to be paid Rs.2,625/- for a contract period of 8 months. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant paid 2 EMIs in advance and as on date an amount of Rs.5,250/- stands due towards the installments overdue besides the penal charges and the complainant has been a defaulter
CC No. 337/2018 Page 7 of 12
towards the said loan which is reflecting from the statement of account and loan has been booked by OP as per the documentswhich have been handed over by OP-1 and thus the allegations with regards to the deficiency is false and baseless and there has never been any request raised for the cancellation of the loan made by the complainant. OP-2 further submitted that the said messagereceived at the end of the complainant was the default message which was sent from the back end of OP, thus the EMI of Rs.2,625/- due on 02.04.2018 is the 1st EMI which the complainant had to pay towards the said loan availed from OP and the loan is not cancelled and is very much active.
5. The complainant filed separate rejoinders and denied the version of OPs.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copy of his voter ID card, copy of Tax Invoice no. BALAJI/GIP/17-18-00974 dated 15.02.2018 of Rs.29,900/- for purchasing the Samsung C-9 PRO mobile handset issued by OP-1, copy of transaction slip dated 15.02.2018 of Rs.6,830/- issued by AXIS Bank, Delhi, copy of Tax invoice no. BALAJI/GIP/17-18-00974 dated 15.02.2018 of Rs.21,000/- for purchasing MOTO X mobile handset issued by OP-1, copies of e-mail communications between the parties, copy of notice dated 18.04.2018 sent by the
CC No. 337/2018 Page 8 of 12
complainant to OPs through speed post alongwith postal receipt,copies of tracking reports and copies of Smart statement of account issued by OP-2.
7. Whereas despite giving various opportunities as well as subject to payment of cost, OP-1 failed to file any affidavit in evidence of any of its official.
8. On the other hand on behalf of OP-2,Sh. Yogesh Yogi,Authorized Representative of OP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement of OP-2. OP-2 also filed copies of statement of account of the complainant issued by OP-2. OP-2 has also filed written arguments.
9. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OPs in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will purchase 2 mobile handsets on the same day from OP-1 vide 2 different invoices issued by OP-1 but having same invoice no.The complainant has categorically stated that he purchased only one mobile handset i.e. Samsung C-9 PRO. As he could not avail the loan from OP-2 due to his negative CIBILscore, he agreed for purchasing Samsung C-9 PRO mobile handset. Furthermore, OP-1 in its written statement has clearly stated that
CC No. 337/2018 Page 9 of 12
the complainant purchased only Samsung C-9 PRO mobile handset though the complainant earlier selected MOTO-X mobile handset for which proforma invoice was issued. OP-1 has failed to lead anyevidence to sort out difference in two tax invoices of same date i.e. 15.02.2018 and having same invoice no. but of different mobile handsets. On both these invoices, OP-1 has made endorsement of mode/terms of payment as Bajaj Finance. But OP-1 has notclarified in those invoices about the amount if any, financed by OP-2.
10. As regards defence as setup by OP-2 is concerned, OP-2 has placed on record original loan file having original Consumer Finance Application Form signed by the complainant alongwith photocopies of his aadhar card, PAN card and original Tax Invoice issued by OP-1 in respect of mobile handset MOTO X-4 of Rs.21,000/-. But the said original invoice does not bear signature of OP-1 and having signatures of the complainant. Whereas the photocopy of this invoice placed on record by the complainant shows that the said invoice is signed by OP-1 and does not bear the signature of the complainant. Furthermore, OP-2 has failed to place on record any document showing sanction and disbursal of loan amount to OP-1 or to the complainant. In the absence of any document in this regard, it is hard to believe that OP-2 has financed the loan amount in respect of mobile handset model MOTO-X and it appears that
CC No. 337/2018 Page 10 of 12
OP-2 in collusion with some officials of OP-1 is trying to make use of proforma invoice issued by OP-1 in respect of mobile handset make MOTO-X which was not purchased by the complainant. Thus, the defence taken by OP-2 does not seem to be genuine and we are of opinion that the executive of OP-2 has misused the photocopies of aadhar card, PAN card of the complainant in collusion with OP-1. Thus, the defence taken by OP-2 does not seem to plausible and is hereby rejected and we are of opinion that without sanctioning and disbursing any loan to the complainant, OP-2 through its recovery agents has beenthreatening and pressurizing the complainant to pay the loan installments. Accordingly,both the OPs are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
11. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct both the OPs jointly or severally as under:
i) To release the NOC for no-dues to the complainant and return the original signed KYC documents i.e. copy of aadhar card and copy of PAN card to the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as cost of litigation.
12. The above amount shall be paid by both the OPs are jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of
CC No. 337/2018 Page 11 of 12
receiving copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OPs fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 21stday of August, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 337/2018 Page 12 of 12
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
