PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 213/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Rabinarayan Panigrahi, S/o- late Nilachal Panigrahi,

R/o- Executive Colony, Po- Budharaja,

Ps- Ainthapali, District- Sambalpur,                           ………..Complainant                                                                   

                                                         Vrs

1. G.N. Electronics, Sambalpur

                    At- Main Road, Near UBI, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, 768004

2. Bajaj Finserv Service Ltd Main Road, Budharaja,

infront of Tanishq Building Sambalpur, Odisha 768004

3. Bajaj Finserv Limited, Head office- 4^th floor,

                    Bajaj Finserv Corporate office, off-Pune-Ahmednagar Road,

          Viman nagar, Pune- 411014                                            ……….....Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. P. Mohapatra & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1                :- Sri. P.Pradhan & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2 & 3         :- Sri. A. Sahoo & Associates

Date of Filing:12.07.2024,  Date of Hearing :21.10.2024,  Date of Judgement :02.12.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased an AC Voltas from O.P.No.1 and on payment of Rs. 8968/- and EMI was fixed @ Rs. 4200/- for 8 months. The cost was Rs. 42,568/-. On 26.08.2022 O.P.No.1 demanded down payment of Rs. 10,454/- instead Rs. 8968/- and O.P.No.1 told to adjust Rs. 1486/- later. The Complainant paid Rs. 10,454/- to O.P.No.1 vide MR No. 424 dated 26.08.2022. The AC was financed by O.P.No.2 & 3. The amount of Rs. 1486/- has not been adjusted. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.
2. The O.P.No.1 in reply submitted that the Complainant purchased VOLTAS SAC-1185V PAZS with serial No. 4553092A22AC04268 worth of Rs. 42,000/- on 26.08.2022 against Retail invoice No. GNVBK/639/22-23. The down payment of Rs. 8968/- EMI Rs. 4200/- is denied. The Complainant is not concerned with the finance. The O.P.No.1 has received Rs. 10454/- to-wards part payment of value Rs. 42,000/-. The O.P.No.1 received rest amount of Rs. 31,456/- and delivered the AC. There is no deficiency on the part of answering O.P.
3. The O.P. No.2 & 3 in reply submitted that for the split AC LAN 4110CD1P-198909 Rs. 42,000/- was sanctioned with an initial tenure of 10 months with 0% interest. Loan was sanctioned on the basis of invoice shared by O.P.No.1. Down payment for the loan was supposed to be 2 advance EMIs and processing fees came around Rs. 8968/-. The O.P.No.1 has charged Rs. 10,454/-. from the loan amount and brought to Rs. 31,546/-. The O.P.No.1 can explain why Rs.10,454/- was received. The Complainant has paid Rs. 351/- as loan enhancement fees, convenience charges and Annual EMI charges. No extra amount has been taken. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.
4. Perused the documents filed by the parties. The O.P.No.1 issued challan No. 658 dated 26.08.2022 for an amount of Rs. 42,000/- towards cost of the AC. It is the admission of Complainant and O.P.No.1 that down payment of Rs. 10,454/- and Rs. 31,456/- in total Rs. 42,000/- has been paid to the O.P.No.1. in the other hand the O.P.No.2 & 3 stated that Rs. 42,000/- finance has been made. As per loan agreement down payment of Rs. 8968/- was to be paid by the Complainant to O.P.No.1. At the time of delivery of AC the rest amount Rs. 33,032/- was to be paid by the O.P.No.2 & 3 to cover the cost of the AC. The O.P.No.2 & 3 have shown loan amount financed Rs. 31,546/- on 26.08.2022. The differential amount of Rs. 1486/- has been taken by O.P.No.2 & 3. The O.P.No.2 & 3 in their written statement submitted that for LAN 4110CD1P198909 an amount of Rs. 42,000/- has been sanctioned, whereas account statement reflect loan amount financed Rs. 31,548/-. The O.P.No.2 & 3 stated 0% interest whereas in the garb of down payment have taken away Rs. 1486/- from the Complainant.
5. The total payment made by the Complainant is

As agreed by the O.P.No.2 & 3 the cost of product is Rs. 42000/- + Rs. 351/- (annual & Misc Fees) = Rs. 42,351/-. The O.P.No.2 & 3 received Rs. 44,405/- from the Complainant. So the O.P.No.2 & 3 have taken excess amount of Rs. 2054/-.

From the Supra discussion it is clear that the O.P.No.2 & 3 firstly in the name of down payment charged excess Rs. 1436/- and at the time of foreclosure charged Rs. 568/- totalling Rs. 2054/- from the Complainant. The activities of the O.P.No.2 & 3 is unfair in trade practice and in the garb of 0% interest charged excess Rs. 2054/- which is illegal. In such circumstances following order is passed.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against O.P.No.2 & 3 and dismissed against O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs. 2054/- to the Complainant with 7% interest w.e.f. 31.01.2023 within one month of this order. In case of non payment the account will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant to-wards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2^nd day of Dec, 2024.

Supply frees copies to the parties.