Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/604/2021

Rajesh Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	604 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	07.09.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	11.04.2023

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Mahajan and Rajni Mahajan, H.No.914/A, Sector 43/A, Chandigarh.  

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCF 55-57, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali 160055, Punjab

2]  Janta Electronics, SCO 36-37, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.S.K.SARDANA                 MEMBER

                                                        

 

 

Argued by :- Complainant in person.

Sh.Ajit Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.P.M.Goyal, Counsel of OP No.1 (Defence of OP No.1 already struck off)

None for OP No.2.

 

PER S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          The case of the complainants is that on 19.10.2019 they purchased one Audio/Music System of Sony Brand from OP NO.2 for an amount of Rs.17000/- paid through HDFC Debit Card.  It is stated that the complainant made said purchase in response to promotional offer on Sony products under scheme “Festive Treat” whereby the HDFC Debit Card customers were to be given 10% assured cash back on paid amount, Sony Mic. worth Rs.1390/- and complete loan financing facility at No Cost EMI, No processing, No Down payment.  It is stated that the said cash back amount was to be credited into the account of complainants.  It is also stated that the complainants made said purchase being allured by the promises & offer made by OP NO.2.  Accordingly, the complainants made the said purchase by financing Rs.17000/- through HDFC Card, to be repaid in 9 monthly installments of Rs.1887.94/- each commencing from 5.11.2019, which were to be auto debited every month from the Savings Account of complainants linked with said Debit Card.  However, the OP Bank instead of deducting the loan amount on 5.11.2019 deducted it on 5.12.2019. The OP Bank was also to credit cash back offer amount of Rs.1088/- but they did not credit the same despite payment of all installments. The complainants sent various communications requesting the OP Bank to credit the cash back amount of Rs.1088/- in their account but finally they refused.

        It is submitted that the complainants also noticed that HDFC Bank also charged Rs.90.53 as charges/fee on the loan amount of Rs.17000/- as the first installment was deducted for Rs.1986.93 instead of Rs.1887.95, whereas the said finance facility under Festive Treat Offer was zero cost EMI Scheme with no fee or charges.  The complainants also agitated the deducting of extra amount/charge of Rs.90.53 from his account and made request to OP Bank to refund it, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 

 

2]      The defence of OP No.1 was struck off vide order dated 20.12.2022 as it failed to file written version within the stipulated time.

        The OP No.2 has filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stating that the complainants themselves purchase the product of Sony Company out of their own free will and choice without any compulsion or pressure from answering OP, who is just a dealer of the Sony Company.  It is stated that Sony Company has not been arrayed as party in the present proceedings by the complainant.  It is also stated that the product in question is of “Sony Company” and the said company had hired the services of M/s Pine Lab Pvt. Ltd who had floated certain schemes for the buyers of Sony Products, in collaboration with OP No.1- HDFC Bank Ltd.  It is submitted that the benefits under the various schemes were to be given to the customers directly by HDFC Bank Ltd. and answering OP NO.2 has no role, whatsoever, to play in the entire matter, thus there is no deficiency in service on its part.  It is also submitted that vide email dated 13.6.2022 (Ann.R-2/1) the answering OP has been informed by the representative of Sony Company that the customers-complainants in the present case has already been granted the benefit of cash back discount of Rs.1088/- by the bank at the time of transaction but the complainants intentionally concealed the said fact.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP NBo.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainants thereby controverting the assertions of OP NO.2 made in its reply.                              

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel of OP No.1 and also gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.  

 

6]      The main grievance of the complainants is that after purchase of a Sony Music system from OP No.2, through HDFC Debit Card of HDFC Bank after getting it financed for Rs.17000/- through said Card, failed to get the cash back offer of Rs.1088/- as assured during its purchase, as well as wrong deduction of Rs.90.53 Paise by HDFC Bank from his Savings Account without his consent towards fee/processing charges.

 

7]      On perusal of entire record, it is observed that the OPs have failed to adduce any documentary evidence that the said amount of Rs.1088/- was refunded to the complainants as a cash back amount.  They have also not adduced any documentary evidence with regard to the said refund such as RTGS/NEFT/Online Banking Transaction in favour of the complainants.

 

8]      With regard to deduction of Rs.90.53 Paise by HDFC Bank-OP No.1, it is observed that this amount was deducted in excess from the account of the complainants in first loan installments and the same is required to be refunded to the complainants.  It is opined that by not refunding the above said amounts, due towards the complainants, the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and also indulged into unfair trade practice.  

9]      In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with direction to refund an amount of Rs.1178.53/- (i.e. Rs.1088+90.53/-) to the complainants. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay complainants a compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- for causing harassment & agony along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/. 

        This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from above relief.   

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                     

11^th April, 2023                        

                                                                                Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER