Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/66/2020

Abhishek - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganesh Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                     Consumer Complaint No. : 66 of 2020

                     Date of Institution             : 10.07.2020

                                                              Date of Decision               : 08.04.2024

 

Abhishek Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Kumar R/o H.No.582, Aman Nagar Tibba Basti, Gali No.8, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Shri Ganesh Mobile Shop No.58, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.

 

2. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Sumit Ground Floor, 7^th main 80 feet road 3^rd Block, Banglore, Karnatka-560034.

 

3. Bajaj Finance Company, Halwasia Mall, 2^nd floor, Bhiwani.

 

4. Indusind Bank, Old Bus stand, Bhiwani.

….. Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1996.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OPs No.3 & 4.

                    Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased two mobile phones of OPPO company through Flipkart (OP No.2). Both the mobiles phones were got financed from OP No.3. It is stated that due to Covid-19, his workplace was closed and therefore, installment of loan could not be deducted from his bank account, however, complainant has alleged during the corona period/lockdown, there was exemption in paying the installments. Complainant has submitted that OP No.3 has imposed penalty of Rs.16,000/- upon him while applying ECS and OP No.4 bank has taken charges thereof. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions against the OP No.3 to refund Rs.16,000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment.

2.                 Notices were sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 did not bother to appear and were proceeded against as exparte vide orders dated 17.09.2021 15.10.2020 respectively.

3.                 OP No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, cause of action and suppression of material facts. Further, it is submitted that three loans of complainant were running which were taken on 23.11.2019, 23.11.2019 & 22.12.2019.  He failed to honour his EMS on the due dates, as a result of which, bouncing charges were levied on the accounts of complainant. However, Reserve Bank of India permitted the lending institutions to grant a moratorium on payment of all installments of loans falling between 01.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 and 01.06.2020 to 31.08.2020. The repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board by the months after the moratorium period with interest continuing to accrue on the outstanding portion of the loan during the moratorium period.  It is added that in case the customer wishes to avail the benefit of moratorium, he/she was supposed to place a request for this purpose but complainant has not requested to avail the benefit of the moratorium. It is submitted that bouncing charges were levied to the account of complainant, however, in good faith, the said charges have been waived off by the OP for the moratorium period as well as benefit of moratorium period was also given to the complainant by refunding Re.1/-, Rs.5/- & Rs.10/- to the accounts of complainant. However, an overdue amount of Rs.1474/- is due to be paid by the complainant. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.4 filed written statement submitting that complainant made repayment of loan through their banker. However, he has defaulted some payments for which this OP charged ECS bounce charges. The OP has denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                 No evidence was produced on behalf of complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, closed by court vide order dated 08.09.2023.  

6.                 On the other side, OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg, Legal Manager as Ex. RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence. On behalf of OP No.4, WS filed on its behalf adopted as their evidence vide statement dated 15.01.2024.

7.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 At the outset, OP No.3 financier has pleaded in their WS that in case the customer/complainant wishes to avail the benefit of moratorium, he/she was supposed to place a request for this purpose but complainant has not requested to avail the benefit of the moratorium. However, benefit of moratorium period was also given to the complainant by refunding Re.1/-, Rs.5/- & Rs.10/- in his account. Further, bouncing charges were levied to the account of complainant, however, in good faith, the said charges were waived off for the moratorium period. This OP has also pleaded that complainant has availed various loans in the past and as per averments, nothing is due against him except the present cause wherein an overdue amount of Rs.1474/- is due to be paid by the complainant.

9.                 In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the entire record, it is observed that the OPs No.3 & 4 have added various charges upon the account of complainant, even during the moratorium period. Thus, in our view, the OPs No.3 & 4 are negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has failed to prove on record that he had paid excess amount of Rs.16,000/- to the OP No.3 and therefore, he is not entitled to such amount.  However, by the act & conduct of Ops No.3 & 4 complainant has to suffer mental and physical harassment and has to knock the doors of this Commission for getting redressed his grievance.  In view of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and OPs No.3 & 4 are equally held liable to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.6000/- (Rs. Six thousand) to the complainant, in lump sum, towards compensation for harassment as well as litigation expense.

                    In case of default, the OPs No.3 & 4 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.         

Announced.

Dated:08.04.2024