Delhi

North

CC/86/2018

SAI JYOTI KANGANDRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EUREKA FORBES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVIN KUMAR

07 Aug 2024

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

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.:86/2018

 

In the matter of

 

Mrs. Sai Jyoti Kangandra,

House No.566, Pocket-E,

Mayur Vihar Phase-II,

Delhi-110091                                                 …                         Complainant

                                                          Vs

Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Through its Managing Director,

Corporate office:B1/B2,701,

Marathon Innova,

Off Ganpatroa Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.                      …                      Opposite Party No.1

 

Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Divisional Sales Office:

Hasanpur Village, IP Extension,

Delhi-110092.                                              …                      Opposite Party No.2

 

 

Eureka Forbes Ltd.

Office At: E-2/251,

Shastri Nagar,

New Delhi-110052.                                                 …                      Opposite Party No.3

 

ORDER

07/08/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

1. on 11.10.2015 Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Love Deep & Ms. Shivani working as Sales Executives under Opposite Party No.2, visited complainant’s residence and requested for demonstration of products manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. After demonstration of their famous Euro Clean (Wet & Dry Model), persuaded the Complainant to purchase the product on instalments basis as offered by the Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant decided to purchase product Euro Clean (Wet & Dry model) on instalment basis as it would not strain her pocket.
2. Ms. Shivani (Executive of Opposite Party No.2) filled the form on the same date i.e., on 11.10.2015 with the Bar Code of Product purchased i.e., Euro Clean (Wet & Dry model). The Cost of the product was specified/ mentioned as Rs.13,990/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand nine hundred ninety only) with Rs.999/- + Rs.1,419/- x 10 EMIs. The first instalment was paid on the date of booking itself. The same is crystal clear by the Order Form-cum Receipt No.108/ 039629 dated 11.10.2015 signed by Ms. Shivani Kumar. The same has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure- C1.
3. the Complainant had paid Rs.1,219/- in cash (i.e., Rs.999/- + Rs.220/- ), Rs.1,419/- through cheque bearing No. 46631 dated 11/10/2015 as first instalment and besides that Complainant had given one crossed cheque bearing No. 46632 for ECS formalities purpose with a consent form/application for ECS mandate. The aforesaid document and cheque were handed over to Sales Executive Ms. Shivani. She issued the final receipt in this regard i.e., Receipt No.108/039629 dated 11.10.2015 which clearly mentions that "received with thanks the sum of Rs.13,990/- CSS Code: 9091014 CSS's Name Shivani.
4. the Sales Executive Mr. Shivani came back after few days with an Application Form Number 104507 to the Complainant's office and requested her to sign the form and give two references. The Complainant signed & gave references accordingly and gave back the original application form to her to get it signed by the seller (Opposite Party). Thereafter, she never returned back. The photo copy of same application form has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C2.
5. the Opposite Party No.2 had encashed the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,419/- on 02.12.2015 as per Bank Account statement of Complainant's Saving Account No. 1956101068927, Canara Bank, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi. The Account Statement has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C3.
6. after lapse of nine months, one executive from office of Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant that they are unable to receive EMIs. The Complainant was shocked to hear this as she maintained sufficient balance in her said savings bank account which was sufficient for the payment of EMIs to the Opposite Party.
7. Opposite Party No.2 instead of getting the documents checked from their record or resolve the matter being a good Corporate House, kept on calling the Complainant on her mobile Phone and land line for cash payment of instalments. Therefore, the Complainant had paid cash payment of Rs.1670/-(Rs. One thousand six hundred seventy only) (instalment Rs.1419/- plus extra Rs.250/- for cheque return charge) to Mr. Ashok Kumar executive of Opposite Party No.2 on 15.08.2016. The receipt has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure -C4.
8. Complainant was harassed by Opposite Parties without any default on her part. Further, in September, 2016, the Complainant further paid Rs.1,670/- ( Rs.1,419/- EMI plus Rs.250/-Cheque Bouncing Charges though no cheque was issued by the complainant for Rs.1,419/- which was claimed to have been dishonoured) on repeated demand by the executive of the Opposite Party No.2. The same receipt is presently misplaced from the Complainant during the period of her illness and surgery in February, 2018.
9. on enquiry from Bank Manager, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party had not lodged/taken approval of ECS mandate in the Complainant's afore-mentioned Savings Bank Account which was earlier signed/ consented by the Complainant and given to the Sales Executive of Opposite Party No.2. She informed the same to the Opposite Party on next call and requested them to do the needful to get the matter resolved at the earliest. The Bank Manager has given a certificate dated 15.02.2018 in this regard. The same has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C5.
10. the executive of Opposite Party intentionally demanding cash and deliberately/ purposely not submitted the ECS mandate to the bank so that the Opposite Party can extract more money from the Complainant. Complainant failed to understand the reason behind not depositing the ECS mandate but later on she realised the malafide intention of the Complainant to extort money in cash.
11. the recovery agents were sent by the Opposite Party at the residence of the Complainant on several occasions for recovery of the amount when complainant and her husband were in office. The Opposite Party No.2 &3 have full knowledge regarding the fact that both the Complainant and her husband are working couple and are not present at their residence during working hours. They threatened their kids and maid. Thereafter, they made threatening calls to the Complainant to pay the rest amount in cash.
12. the Complainant and her husband were very much disturbed and harassed by the unlawful act of the Opposite Party and for the security of her children and peaceful environment at home, the complainant intended to resolve the issue at the earliest. On 25th February, 2017 a lady executive, who stated herself to be the Manager-in Charge of the Accounts Department of Opposite Party No.3 came at the residence of the Complainant demanding Rs.9,933/- (Rupees Nine thousand nine hundred thirty three only) as full and final payment, the complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 153763 amounting to Rs.9,933/- drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Opposite Party to clear the account of the Opposite Party.
13. the said cheque for Rs.9,933/- was duly encashed by the Opposite Party and the debit entry is reflected in the bank account statement of the Complainant. Receipt acknowledging the payment of Rs.9,933/- dated 25.02.2017 issued by Opposite Party No.2 has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C6. The Complainant finally paid Rs.15,911/- for a product of cost whereof as per the agreed terms was Rs.13990/-. Breakup of the amount of Rs.15,911/- is given as under:

S. No.	Details of payment	Amount (Rs.)
1.	On 11.10.2015 in Cash against receipt no.108039629	Rs.999+220=Rs.1,219/-
2.	Through cheque bearing No.46631 dated 11.10.2015 encashed on 02.12.2015 Bank Account Statement of the Complainant	Rs.1,419/-
3.	On 15.08.2016 in cash against receipt no.311/040289	Rs.1,419+250=Rs.1,1670/-
4.	September, 2016 in Cash	Rs.1,419+Rs.250/-=Rs.1,670/-
5.	Through Cheque No.153763 dated 25.02.2017 against receipt No.R1/2015-16/8599-encashed on 28.02.2017	Rs.9,933/-
	Total amount	Rs.15,911/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. the cost of the product in question on online marketing/ sale as on date also is Rs.13,990/- or less in the market. Annexure-C7 has been annexed with the complaint as proof of cost of the product in question on online marketing/ sale as on date.

 

2.       It has further been alleged that the harassment, threatening and mental agony didn't end and the Opposite Party again started calling for money. The Complainant told the executive of Opposite Party to kindly check their record as she had paid full and final payment and had cleared the account. The modus-operandi of Opposite Party to extort money from the Complainant is clear from their malafide and motivated acts. The Opposite Party intentionally not deposited the ECS mandate to extract more and more cash money from Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 didn't stop here they made calls from mobile nos. 09990311856 (advocate Raghubeersaha), 09560086043(Advocate Sonam Singh), 09810398285 (Advocate Deepika Das), 09136658389 (Forbes Recovery Agent), 08750368446 (Eureka) to the complainant and threatened the Complainant for the payment for the product taken despite receiving full payment which is more than the agreed cost of the product as is evident from Annexure C-1.

 

3.       The Opposite Party had issued a legal notice dated 10/02/2018 to the Complainant through their counsel and demanded Rs.10,014/- (Rupees Ten thousand and fourteen only) despite knowing well that they have received more amount than the cost of the product purchased by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 intentionally made threatening calls and sent goons to the residence of the Complainant to extort more and more money with malafide intention. In furtherance to their motivated interest to extort money, they again sent legal notice dated 01.03.2018 received by speed post on 27.03.2018 for payment of Rs.15,690/-( Rs Fifteen Thousand six hundred ninety only) despite receipt of entire payment. The legal notices has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C8 (colly).

 

4.       It has further been stated that the Complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.0101951025 on 23/02/2018 through Euro Helpline No. 1860266117 regarding this matter. Ms. Uzma, Escalation Coordinator with Contact No.65650522, spoke to the Complainant and asked to mail the details/receipts to resolve the matter. The Complainant immediately sent the same slips/receipts to the co- ordinator through mail. She didn't resolve the issue, so the Complainant again on 28/02/18 lodged another complaint follow-up Request No.0102004110 on the same issue on which Ms. Uzma called her back to assure she will resolve the issue in 2 days but till 27.03.2018, no communication was received and the threatening calls were continuing. Further, on 27.03.2018 the complainant lodged complaint bearing follow-up No.010225914127, stating that the issue will be resolved in two complete working days and someone from the company will visit complainant’s home. At last on 10.04.2018 Ms. Uzma, Escalate Co-ordinator on repeated request sent NOC issued by the Company stating that there are no outstanding as on 10.04.2018. Copy of the email with NOC dated 10.04.2018 has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C9.

 

5.       The complainant has, therefore, filed this complaint before this Commission praying to:-

1. Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the excess payment taken for the product purchased [i.e. Rs.15,991/-(amount received by the OP) minus Rs.13,990/-(the Cost of the product)].
2. Award an compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) in favour of Complainant and against the Opposite Parties.
3. Award the cost of litigation in favour of Complainant and against the Opposite Parties.
4. Pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the present case.

 

6.       the Complainant has also filed copies of receipt no.108/039629 dated 11.10.2015, application form no.104507, account statement of Complainant’s saving account with Canara Bank, Mayur Vihar phase-II, cash payment of Rs.1,670/- dated 15.08.2016, certificate dated 15.02.2018 issued by Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, OP-2’s payment receipt dated 25.02.2017 for an amount of Rs.9,933/-, proof of cost of product on online marketing/ sale as Rs.13,990/- or less, legal notices for demand of Rs.10,014 and Rs.15,690/-,NOC issued by Eureka Forbes Company to substantiate the allegations.

 

7.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response, the OPs have filed joint reply stating that:-

1. the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has not come to  forum with clean hands and the complainant has suppressed the material facts.
2. the present complaint Is not maintainable as the present complaint does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of forum as presently the opposite party does not have any office in Shastri Nagar and that branch has been closed by the company in November 2017 and the complainant has not done any dealing from that branch. The complainant has purchased the euro clean in Mayur Vihar at her home only, hence, the forum does not have any jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
3. the sale agreement of the complainant contains the arbitration clause in it and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.
4. the present complaint is filed by the complainant just to harass and extort money from the reputed company on the false and frivolous facts mentioned in the complaint.
5. The Complainant has settled her dispute with the company on 10/04/2018 and took the NOC from the company and thereafter settling all the dispute complainant has filed this case on 23/04/2018 just to harass the opposite party and to make money.
6. Complainant has failed to show any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party ,hence, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is deserve to be dismissed with cost.
7. The opposite party has demanded the money which is not paid by the complainant because her ECS were bounced and bouncing charges were paid by the company and complainant has filed the false and fabricated case against the opposite parties and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

8.       The OP has also filed Para wise reply on merit on the allegation levelled in the complaint which are discussed below:-

1. the contents of para No.1 of the complaint is matter of record,hence need no reply.
2. the contents of paras No.2 of the complaint is matter of record, hence, need no reply.
3. the contents of para No.3 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied that presently the company does not have any office at Shastri Nagar and there is no existence of OP no.3 as this branch has been closed by the company in November 2017 and complainant has filed the case in April or May 2018 and there is no such party exist in the market as the company does not have any office in Shastri Nagar.
4. the contents of para No.4 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. It is the complainant, who has called the executives of the company to show the demo of their product as the eureka forbes is the big brand and demand of the product of the opposite party is very high in the market and complainant opted the purchasing the instalment scheme for product of opposite party.
5. the contents of para No.5 of the complaint is matter of record, hence, need no reply.
6. the contents of para No.6 of the complaint is matter of record, hence, need no reply.
7. the contents of para No.7 of the complaint is matter of record, hence, need no reply.
8. the contents of para No.8 of the complaint is matter of record, hence, need no reply.
9. the contents of para No.9 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. The complainant was not paying the instalment time on and therefore, she was requested to pay the said amount.
10. the contents of para No.10 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. The complainant was not paying the instalment money on time and she was requested by the officials of the company to pay the due amount and after so many request she paid the Rs.1670/- on 15/08/2016 after the her ECS was bounced and it clearly shows that complainant herself defaulted in making payment to the opposite party. Complainant paid first instalment on October 2015 and thereafter she paid on 15/08/2016 which clearly shows from her complaint that she was not paying the instalments on time, hence, it is the opposite party who has been harassed by the act of the complainant.
11. the contents of para No.11 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. Complainant has not made any payment in month of September. It is clear from her complaint that complainant made first payment on 15/10/2015 and then on 15/08/2016.  it clearly show that complainant was not making the payment on time and harassing the opposite party by depriving the opposite party from its hard earn money..
12. the contents of para No.12 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. Complainant in her own complaint mentioned that after nine months of purchase one executive requested to make the payment but at that time complainant does not start the ECS mandate in favour complainant 15/02/2018 of opposite party and started the after receiving mandate on the legal notice dated 10/02/2018 for recovery. It clearly shows the malafide intention on the part of the complainant for not paying the due amount on time to the opposite party.
13. the contents of para No.13 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
14. the contents of para No.14 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. No recovery agents visited the house of the complainant.
15. the contents of para No.15 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
16. the contents of para No.16 of the complaint needs no reply as it is a matter of record.
17. the contents of para No.17 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. The complainant has taken the machinery on instalment bases and has paid ECS bounce charge and also interest on loan. Therefore the price of the complainant product is different from the market price.
18. the contents of para No.18 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. The complainant has took the machinery on instalment bases and has paid ECS bounce charge and also interest on loan. Therefore the price of the complainant product is different from the market price.
19. the contents of para No.19 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
20. The contents of para No.20 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that the company deposit the mandate on time vide registered no.AXA/20160106183937801 and AXIS bank also sent the mandate to the customer's bank transaction no. 135696026 but the default was from the bank of complainant.
21. the contents of para No.21 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
22. the contents of para No.22 of the complaint are matter of record hence not denied.
23. the contents of para No.23 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
24. The complainant was given the NOC on 10/04/2018 and matter was settled there only but to extract money from the opposite party.
25. the contents of para No.24 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.
26. the contents of para No.25 of the complaint are wrong and hence denied.

 

9.       Both the parties have also filed their respective evidences by way of Affidavit and written arguments.   Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidences put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

 

1. Regarding objections of the OPs about the jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate this complaint, it is clarified that the complainant has also filed a receipt dated 25-02-2017 for Rs.9933/- with the complaint and this receipt has been issued to her by the OP-3. While admitting this complaint, it has been considered and found that OP-3 Office at “E-2/251, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-110052” falls within the jurisdiction of this commission which is fully competent to entertain and adjudicate this complaint as per the provisions of the CP Act,1986.
2.  The OPs have alleged that the Complainant did not start the ECS mandate till 15.02.2018 till the receipt of legal notice dated 10.02.2018 for recovery. This contention of the OP-1 does not sound convincing as the Complainant while purchasing the product on 11.10.02015, had given crossed Cheque No.46632 to the OPs for ECS mandate purpose and  this mandate was never revoked by her. It was for the OPs to present the ECS for making it operational. This fact has also not been rebutted by the OPs in its reply for the allegations levelled Para 6 of the complaint.
3. The OPs have contended that the ECS mandate, given by the Complainant, was bounced but have failed to place on record any document to substantiate that this was on the part of complainant. On the other hand, the Complainant has filed a Certificate dated 15.12.2018 issued by the Senior Manager, Canara Bank/ Banker of the Complainant that no such ECS mandate has been lodged. As such, the OPs have failed to prove that ECS mandate given by the Complainant was not made operational due to fault of complainant which indicates that the OPs have filed deceptive and frivolous reply to misguide this Commission with the intention to conceal its deficiency in service.
4. The OPs have not attempted to make the ECS mandate operational but continued to levy charges upon the complainant on account of bouncing of  ECS.
5. It has also been seen that the OPs have not filed any conclusive reply/rebuttal to the allegations levelled in the complaint at Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22 in WS to the allegation levelled in the complaint. The OPs have simply stated that the contents are of matter of record or wrong, hence, need no reply. This indicates that the OPs have nothing concrete to rebut the allegations and have tried to mislead the Commission with deceptive submissions. It has also been seen that no documentary evidence has been filed by the OPs with the reply.

10.     In view of the above discussions, we conclude that the OPs have been deficient in providing service to the Complainant, who is a Government servant   and has not been dealt by the OPs in descent manner who continued to harass her by visiting her residence again and again to cover up their own fault/failure in not presenting the ECS mandate to make it operational well in time. Right course of action on the part of the OPs would have been to request the complainant in writing to give another cheque to start the ECS but this was not done and OPs adopted short cut method of harassment which led mental tension & agony to the complainant and her family. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP (M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.) in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.

11.     Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s Eureka Forbes Ltd.) to pay Rs.2,001/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Only) (within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 23.04.2018 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay simple interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

12.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                    ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              HARPREET KAUR CHARYA  

                                      Member                                                                                 Member               

                               DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                  DCDRC-1 (North)   

                                                           

          DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                                         President

      DCDRC-1 (North)