Delhi

North

RBT/CC/193/2022

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAPITAL FIRST - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

RBT/CC No/193/2022

In the matter of

Anil Kumar         

S/o Sh.Vir Bhan

R/o KU-24, Pitampura

Saraswati Vihar

Delhi-110034                                                                      ……Complainant

 

Versus

Office of the Capital First

C/o Sargam India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

498, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034                        …Opposite Party

                                                      

 

ORDER
17/04/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP, Capital First C/o Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. with the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 13/01/2018, the complainant purchased one Samsung Mobile G610F-J7PRIME 32GB Black handset bearing IME No.351678091153021 from Sargam Electronics. The cost of the said handset was Rs.13,900/- and it was agreed to be financed at  Zero percent interest.    
3. It has been stated that an amount of Rs.756/- was paid in cash and Rs.12,944/- were financed.  On 29/03/2018, the complainant visited the OP and asked for the EMI details, where he was informed that details would be sent through email.  However, one of the office assistant agreed to provide the detail of the application form for durable loan.
4. The complainant has further submitted that on the application form the loan was sanctioned for Rs.13,700/- and Rs.200/- had been added as a margin money to regularize the loan, which was immediately reported to OP but of no avail.  Feeling aggrieved the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the entire amount with interest at the market rate along with an amount of Rs.99,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.
5. The complainant has annexed tax invoice dated 13/01/2018 as     Annexure C-1, Application form for durable loan as Annexure C-2 and email dated 29/03/2018 as Annexure C-3 with the complaint.
6. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP. However, none appeared despite service, hence they were proceeded Ex-Parte by DCDRC-V (North West). 
7. Ex-parte evidence was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated. The complainant has relied upon the documents annexed with the complaint.
8. We have heard the submission made by the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The perusal of the Tax Invoice issued by Sargam India Electronics , Annexure-C1 and Application form for the consumer durable loan ,Annexure- C2, are document filed by the complainant in support of the allegations . The tax invoice dated 13/01/2018  bears as follows:

Rupees Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred only

Cash : 756.00

Credit Card:0.00

Bajaj Finance:0.00

Future Finance: 12,944.00.....271633856

•  

9. At the same time the Annexure-C2, for the Loan reference no. 27133856, bears the sales point name as ‘Sargam India Electr Pvt. Ltd Kohat’ . Under the head ‘Finance Requirement’, against Asset Cost it bears Rs. 13,900/- and corresponding to the Loan Amount its written   Rs. 13,700/- and Margin Money as Rs.200/-.
10.  Thus, it is clear that the out of the total cost of the handset ie                Rs. 13,900/-, the complainant had paid Rs. 756/- and the balance of      Rs. 12,944/-was to be financed.  However, the OP instead of adjusting the amount paid by way of cash issued a loan for Rs.13,700/-.  As per annexure C-3, the complainant has disputed the loan amount as well as deduction of Rs.118/- from his account.  During the submission, the complainant has stated that he has repaid the loan and in support has filed the statement of account.  As per the statement the complainant has paid 06 instalments of Rs.2284/- each, thereby paying in total of Rs.13,704/-.
11.  As OP has been proceeded ex-parte, the allegations made by the complainant have remained unrebutted.   Thereby charging Rs.760/- in excess by sanctioning the loan of Rs.13,700/- instead of Rs.12,944/-, we hold that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and at the same time non issuance of the loan document also amounts to deficiency in services. 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint we direct OP to refund Rs.760/- charged in excess.We also award compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order else Rs.5,760/- (Rs.760/-+Rs.5,000/-) shall carry interest@7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

 

                            

 

                                     (DivyaJyotiJaipuriar)

                                                            President