DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.11.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT(I/C)
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant booked one Samsung Galaxy On 8 (Blue, 64 GB) mobile handset before the O.P. online installment basis vide its order ID-OD113627113582608000 for Rs.14,990/- and his ordered approved on dated 13th October 2018. After conclusion of order and approved, the complainant did not wants to purchase the same due to delay servicing. Subsequently the complainant immediately intimated to the O.Ps for cancelling the same on 18th October 2018 vide its refund ID No. 149228319 and the O.Ps sent the messages to the complainant vide its refund related incident in support of the customer.The complainant intimated the O.Ps for refund the case of the complainant. Subsequently the O.P.No.2 immediately issued the message to the O.P.No.1 and details of the refund mentioned in the said message which is known as view details and direction to the complaint for Rs.14,990/- as refund will be transferred to the complainant’s credit card by on 30th October, 2018. After conclusion of inquiry and knows that the consent Bank i.e. S.B.I. Bazar Branch, Berhampur near Sub-Registrar Office, Berhampur vide Account No. 31346940713 and debited the several E.M.I. of Rs.1677/- on every month. The complainant verified the Bank’s details statement in his passbook. The O.P. withdraw Rs.1735/- dated 2.11.2018, on 2.12.2918 withdraw Rs.1677/-, on 2.1.2019 withdraw Rs.1677/-, then on 2.2.2019 also withdrawn Rs.1677/- total received the O.Ps Rs.1735/-+ Rs.1677/-+Rs.1677/-+Rs.1677/-=Rs.6,756/-. The complainant several time approached the O.Ps for without service, whey withdraw E.M.I. monthly after intimate for the cancellation order since 2.11.2018 to 2.2.2019. The complainant issued the message to the O.Ps (G-mail) for amount recovered on 16.11.2018, 4.12.2018, 8.12.2018, 14.12.2018, 17.12.2018. The complainant withdraw the amount from Bank and yet not deposit the said account subsequently the consent Bank debit for charge for fail mandatory Bajaj Fi transfer to investment EMI Rs.295/-+ Rs.295/- +Rs.295/- +Rs.295/- in total Rs.1000/- without any cause of action. Due to acts of the O.Ps the complainant suffered mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the cash of Rs.14,990/-+ Rs.6,756/-+Rs.1000/- as received by the O.P. in E.M. with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the bests interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complainant has been an existing customer of the O.P. and has availed few loans in the past out of which some stands closed and some are active. The complainant had issued Auto Debit/NACH mandates for repayment of the installment for his loans to the O.P. The complainant availed loan from the O.P. vide loan Account No. 4C2ECF90802570 for an amount of Rs. 15089/- with 0% interest for a contract period of nine months i.e. the said loan was repayable vide nine regular equated monthly installments of Rs. 1677/- and commencing from 02.11.2018. The complainant has paid the EMI of Rs. 1677/- towards the said online loan on time without any default, further as on date the said loan account is active with NIL outstanding dues. There has been no deficiency in service committed on the part of the O.P. The complainant himself had purchased a product online through the Flipkart. According to the captioned complaint the product was not adequate as the same was under delay servicing. Hence he had returned the same to Flipkart and the complainant wanted the refund of the EMIs so deducted. The complainant had taken up the matter with the Flipkart and it was informed to the O.P. that complainant has not cancelled the purchase order and thus the loan which has been availed buy the complainant should not be closed/cancelled. The complainant has not made Flipkart a party to this complaint and thus the said complaint should be dismissed alone on this ground for the mis-joinder of the parties. The complainant cannot take the stand that, the O.P. has collected the excess amount from him. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. The O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegation made in the complaintpetition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to the strict proof of such of those allegations, which are not specifically admitted herein. The allegation made in Para 1, 2 & 3 are not to the knowledge of the Opposite Party and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. As this O.Ps has no role in those alleged affairs, it cannot give any comments about all those allegations and cannot be also held liable for any of those affairs. This O.P. has allowed the deduction and withdrawal of amounts as mentioned in Para-4 of the complaint petition, as per the mandate/authorization given buy the complainant. So this O.P. has performed its legal obligation as per law and banking norms. No intimation or instruction to stop payment, whatsoever, has been received by this O.P. relating to the aforesaid transactions, which were carried out in due course of business. The allegations made in the rest of the Paras 5, 6 and 7 are not all true, correct and denied in total by this O.P. The complainant is never approached this O.P. or made any written communication. So the allegation made regarding malafide intention, deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment by this O.P. is not at all true and the same is denied. This case involves complex question of facts, evidence and law. Hence this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to admit the case and try the same and the matter can be properly adjudicated in the Civil and criminal Court. Due to the above facts, this complaint does not come within the scope and ambit of the consumer Forum and there is no deficiency in service provided by this O.P. This O.P. is not liable to pay anything or responsible for the alleged transactions. This O.P. is not liable to pay anything towards loss, damage, cost, harassment etc. This complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of State Bank of India, without any specific allegation or cause of action against it. Hence this O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
6. On the date of hearing the Commission heard from the Ld. Advocate of Opposite Party no.3 whereas the Complainant and Op.Nos. 1 & 2 found absent. The Commission provided sufficient opportunity to the complainant and Op Nos. 1 & 2 to submit their arguments in the case. The Commission heard on the point of issues at length. The Commission perused the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit, written arguments and documents available in the case records.
7. In the instant case the complainant and OP Nos. 1 & 2 have not adduced any evidence whereas the Op Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written argument. The Complainant is absent in the Commission consistently since August 2019 and not taken any steps in any point of time in his favour. It deems that the Complainant does not want to proceed in the case. It is tantamount to non-prosecution of the case. However, the Commission perused the case record, and in view of the specific grievances in the case i.e., delay in providing services and cancellation of loan thereafter, the Complainant has not impleaded the flipkart as the necessary and proper party in the case who could answer the issues. In catena of cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court of India laid principle of law that, ‘in absence of the necessary party no effective order can be passed by any Court.’ Hence it is lacks of non-joinder of necessary party. Further, it is manifest from the case there is no cause of action arises against the present opposite parties. The opposite parties have executed their mandatory duties as per mandate. Hence the case is not maintainable against the present opposite parties.
In conclusion, considering the above factual aspects in the case, the Commission dismissed the complaint against all the opposite parties summarily in the interest of justice. No cost.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
All the interim orders disposed of with the above order.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 26 November 2024.
