BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 518/2002 Filed on 07.12.2002

Dated : 15.07.2010

Complainant:

Baiju. V, Baiju Bhavan, Kurumthotta, Vembannoor, Aruvikkara P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Rakhi Ravi Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. Branch Manager, K.S.F.E, Kesavadasapuram Branch, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Regional Manager, K.S.F.E Ltd., Bhadratha, P.B. No. 510,Museum Road, Thrissur-680 020.

(By adv. P.K. Venugopal)

This O.P having been heard on 15.05.2010, the Forum on 15.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant applied for a hire purchase loan before the 1^st opposite party and paid Rs. 175/- for application and other expenses. Based on the terms and conditions of the opposite party, complainant's father stood as surety. Opposite party sanctioned loan on 18.09.2001 and the opposite party demanded to pay Rs. 3,013/- as initial payment and also produced an invoice of L.G Colour T.V issued by United Electronics for Rs. 20,500/- to the opposite party. Due to the festival season L.G. Company had given discount of Rs. 1,488/- for the T.V which was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 19,012/-. As per the complainant he is entitled to get that discount offer. But the opposite party did not give that discount offer to the complainant, they are trying to levy that amount also from the complainant. Complainant alleges that the opposite party issued the loan for an amount of Rs. 17,500/- and trying to collect Rs. 20,500/- from him. It is illegal and hence this complaint.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed their version. On 18.09.2001 complainant has availed a hire purchase loan of Rs. 17,500/- from 1^st opposite party for purchasing a colour television under Tie up Scheme from United, Electronics, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram. The father of the complainant stood as surety to the loan transaction. As per the terms of agreement executed between the complainant and 1^st opposite party the complainant has to repay the loan amount with flat interest @ 4.25% per annum in 24 monthly instalments. Upto 23 instalments the complainant has to remit Rs. 792/- in eachmonth and in 24^th instalment complainant has to remit an amount of Rs. 771/- to close the loan transaction. If the complainant defaulted the repayment of monthly instalments K.S.F.E has every right to levy penal interest @ 18% for each defaulted monthly installments from the date of default till realization. The complainant has absolutely no right to obstruct the same. After availing the loan complainant has remitted only 15 monthly installments and thereafter committed default. On 17.09.2001 the loanee has remitted an amount of Rs. 3,013/- to the opposite party out of which Rs. 3,000/- was initial hire amount i.e; difference of invoice price of T.V Rs. 20,500/- and loan amount Rs. 17,500/- and Rs. 12/- towards stamp and paper charges and Rs. 1/- as option money.

Complainant has availed the hire purchase loan under tie up scheme from the 1^st opposite party. The K.S.F.E has entered into a financial tie up with L.G. Electronics India Ltd. for 2001 Onam season. As per the tie up scheme the L.G. Electronics India Ltd. are buying back the interest for one year on the advances availed for purchasing their products coming under the scheme. Though the invoice price of the television is Rs. 20,500/- the L.G. Electronics India Ltd. will charge only Rs. 19,012/- as price of the television and Rs. 1,488/- will be given as discount on purchase under the tie up scheme. This amount of Rs. 1,488/- is deducted from the invoice price of the television and adjusted towards interest of advance availed by the loanee. The loanee has to remit only Rs. 17,500/- with subsidised rate of 4.25% flat interest to close the loan. If the party is not opting tie up scheme the rate of interest to loan will be 8.5% flat. If the complainant remits the loan amount without any default he has to remit only Rs. 17,500/- towards principal and Rs. 1,487/- towards interest to close the loan transaction. So the averments that K.S.F.E is collecting Rs. 20,500/- with interest from the complainant is not correct and hence denied. As per the tie up scheme, complainant is not entitled to get the discount amount as alleged, but he is getting benefit as interest concession. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavits. Complainant has produced 9 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. Opposite parties have filed 3 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 to D3.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that the discount given by the L.G. Electronics has been cunningly snatched by the opposite party alleging false interest claims. Complainant is willing to remit the balance amount with interest to the opposite parties. Complainant in this case has produced the statement of account regarding the hire purchase loan transaction.

Total amount taken as loan : Rs. 17,500/-

Initial payment : Rs. 3,000/-

Interest for 2 years @ 41.25% : Rs. 1,488/-

Total amount to be remitted in Bank: Rs. 17,500/- + Rs. 1,488/-

= Rs. 18,988/-.

Total cost for the T.V = Rs. 20,500/- as per invoice, discount amount due to the festival season-Rs. 1,488/-, the total price of the T.V is Rs. 20,500/- - Rs. 1,488/- = Rs. 19,012/-. According to the 1^st opposite party's account the amount for the T.V = Rs. 17,500/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 1,488/- = Rs. 21,988/-. According to the 1^st opposite party's account the price for the T.V = Rs. 17,500/- + Rs. 3,000/- = Rs. 20,500/-. The price of the T.V due to the festival season = Rs. 20,500/- - Rs.1,488/- = Rs. 19,012/-. To prove his statement the complainant has produced 9 documents. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of chalan for remittance of Rs. 3,013/- on 17.09.2001. Ext. P2 is the photocopy of delivery order dated 18.09.2001. As per this document rate of L.G Colour T.V model 21 is Rs. 20,500/-. Ext. P3 is the bill copy of the United Electronics issued in the name of opposite party dated 18.09.2001. As per this bill the price of T.V is Rs. 20,500/- from that price Rs. 1,488/- is deducted as discount. As per this document the opposite party has remitted Rs. 19,012/- to the United Electronics as the price of the L.G Colour T.V. Ext. P4 is the salary certificate of the surety. Ext. P5 is the copy of cheque issued by K.S.F.E to the Federal Bank for an amount of Rs. 19,012/-. Ext. P7 is the photocopy of receipt issued by the opposite party to the United Electronics for the acceptance of Rs. 1,488/-. Ext. P8 is the photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 16.10.2002. Ext. P9 is the photocopy of pass book issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

For contending the statement of the complainant the opposite parties have produced 3 documents. Ext. D1 is the ledger copy of loan account of the complainant. Opposite party states that as per this document the price of the T.V set is Rs. 20,500/-. But as per Ext. P7 document the opposite party had received the discount amount of Rs. 1,488/- from the United Electronics. And also as per Ext. P3 bill the price of the T.V after discount is Rs. 19,012/- only. Hence that contention of the opposite party is not sustainable. The actual price of the T.V is Rs. 19,012/-. Opposite party argued that Ext. D1 agreement executed between the complainant and opposite parties do not stipulate transfer of discount to customers. The concession in interest is the benefit given to the hirers under tie up scheme. But we cannot see such a condition anywhere in Ext. D1 agreement. Hence that contention of the opposite parties are not maintainable. The discount benefit definitely goes to the consumers. Ext. D2 is the statement showing the amount remitted by the complainant. As per this document the complainant had remitted 18 installments. Ext. D3 is the copy of circular No. 139/01 issued by the opposite party. As per this circular Electronics India Ltd. is charged with interest @ 4.25% per annum. As per this document the price of the T.V set is Rs. 20,500/-. It is true that the price of the T.V is Rs. 20,500/-. But there was discount of Rs. 1,488/- from that amount at the time of purchasing the T.V. Hence the opposite party had to pay only Rs. 19,012/-. As per Ext. D3 circular rate of interest is 4.25% per annum. Nowhere in Ext. D3 it is stated that the discount is given to the company and not to consumers. From the documents and other evidences adduced by both parties we find that the festival offer benefit given by the L.G. Electronics India Ltd. was not given to the complainant by the opposite party. That benefit was enjoyed by the opposite parties. Opposite parties charged interest and other repayment proceedings for an amount of Rs. 20,500/- as the price of the T.V. The act of the opposite party definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to deduct Rs. 1,488/- from the principal amount and on the basis of balance amount calculate the interest prepare repayment schedule from 18.09.2001. This Forum direct the opposite parties not to charge penal interest from the complainant from the date of complaint i.e; from 07.12.2002. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of July 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 518/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Baiju

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of chalan for remittance of Rs. 3013/- on

17.09.2001

P2 - Photocopy of delivery order dated 18.09.2001

P3 - Copy of bill dated 18.09.2001

P4 - Copy of the salary certificate of the surety.

P5 - Copy of cheque issued by KSFE to the Fedreral Bank.

P6 - Copy of hire purchase scheme.

P7 - Photocopy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

P8 - Photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite

party.

P9 - Photocopy of pass book.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - B. Vijaya

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of HP agreement No. 233/01 dated 28.08.2001.

D2 - Statement showing the amount remitted by the complainant.

D3 - Copy of circular No. 139/01 issued by the opposite party.

PRESIDENT

jb