Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/827

Gurjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Upkar Singh

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 827 of 04.12.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 17.06.2015

                    

Gurjeet Kaur aged about 40 years, w/o Sh.Harjit Singh, resident of H.No.1079, LIG Flats, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: Third Floor, Tower-C, DLF Infinity Tower, DLF Cyber City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2. Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, Dena Bank, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3. M/s Kochhar Enterprises, Shop no.10, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory Sarabjit Kochhar.

…..Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Upkar Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Anand Sabharwal, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   Sh.Gurpeet Singh, Advocate for OP3.

 

ORDER

 

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Gurjeet Kaur w/o Sh.Harjit Singh, resident of H.No.1079, LIG Flats, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: Third Floor, Tower-C, DLF Infinity Tower, DLF Cyber City Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chairman/Managing Director and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to immediate clear the claim of the complainant, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of causing mental harassment, due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled to.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased a Laptop Make HP from OP1, vide invoice no.478 for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. At that time, the OP2 took Rs.17,320/- from the complainant and the amount of installments was fixed at Rs.2000/- per month and OPs also received the ten blank signed cheques from the complainant in advance. The said Laptop was financed by the OP1 on asking of OP2. On 15.9.14 the complainant was shocked, when she received the telephonic call from OP1 that loan case of LED has been passed for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the complainant has to pay nine installments of Rs.4430/- each to OP1. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP2 and apprised the above said facts, but the OP2 at the instance of OP1 showed his inclination and also asked the complainant that in case the complainant did not obliged with them they will misuse the cheques in question so as to recover the amount of LED instead of Laptop. The complainant approached the OPs time and again to do the needful, but the OPs instead of acceding to the genuine request of the complainant threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 and OP2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merits and thus liable to be dismissed; the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands; the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; no cause of action ever arose in favour of the answering OPs and against the answering OPs to file the present complaint. The complainant is bound to follow the terms and conditions of loan. The complainant accepted the terms of loan and accordingly Samsung LED Model 40H5500 was delivered to the complainant by OP3, but later on the complainant with the malafide intentions created the false and fabricated facts in order to avoid her liability; no prima facie case has been made out against the answering OPs. On merits, submitted that OP1 deals in providing loans to the intending customers, but does not deal in any sale related activity of any of the products. The complainant approached the OPs and had applied the loan for the purchase of Samsung LED by submitting the Loan Application Form with OP1 and OP2. Further submitted that true facts of the case are that on 11.9.14 complainant approached OP2 and requested for financing an LED TV make Samsung Model 40H5500, which she intends to purchase from OP3. The complainant submitted a consent form indicating her willingness to obtain loan from OP2, which was followed by the application form and the same was to be financed by answering OPs. Before sanctioning the loan answering OPs made the Tele Verification Call to the complainant on the very same day i.e. on 11.9.14. Thereafter a loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant, vide agreement no.3402232702, through a sanction letter dated 11.9.14 and the same was to be repayable in 13 EMIs. The complainant after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the loan, provided her consent and signed and accepted the Sanction letter and acknowledged the receipt of the General Terms and Conditions attached with the Sanction letter. Thereafter the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.17,320/-. Thereafter, OPs delivered the Samsung LED to the address of the complainant, vide invoice no.292 dated 15.9.14 amounting to Rs.50,000/- clearly mentioning that the product was financed by “Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd.” i.e. answering OPs. The said invoice was duly signed by the complainant, which evident the fact that the complainant took the delivery of Samsung LED TV and took the loan from answering OPs only for the purchase of Samsung LED TV. Further submitted that as the mode of payment was Direct Debit through ECS, the complainant directed her bank State Bank of India, Ludhiana to make the payment to answering OPs from her saving account no.33078691731 having MICR no.141002047 for Rs.4430/- per month. The complainant alongwith the ECS mandate also submitted the cancelled cheque to verify the bank details. The complainant also executed a promissory note for Rs.39,870/- in favour of the answering OPs. The husband of the complainant also admitted the purchase of Samsung LED TV alongwith other details of the complainant and loan facility. Hence, it becomes clear from the circumstances and facts of the case that the complainant had purchased Samsung LED TV model 40H5500 and got the same financed from the answering OPs. Further denying the contents of the all other allegations of the complaint, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                On notice of the complaint, OP3 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the concealed the material and relevant facts from this Forum. Further submitted that the alleged bill no.478 belongs to one Amanjot Singh and not the complainant, as such the present complaint is not legally maintainable as per law and is liable to be dismissed. Further mentioned that the alleged bill no.478 as supplied by the complainant is a original copy. However, at the time of finance of any articles, the finance company retain the original copy of the bill and only duplicate copy is supplied to the customer. Meaning thereby that the complainant has forged and fabricated the said bill, as such, the present complaint deserves dismissal. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ms.Gurjeet Kaur Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 and OP2 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Vatsala Sahota, Manager Legal, Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd. Ex.RW1, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14. Whereas, Ld. counsel for OP3 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sarabjit Kochar, C/o Kochar Enterprises, Shop no.10, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana Ex.RW2, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached document Ex.RX.

6.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a Laptop Make HP from OP1, vide invoice no.478 for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. At that time, the OP2 took Rs.17,320/- from the complainant and the amount of installments was fixed at Rs.2000/- per month and OPs also received the ten blank signed cheques from the complainant in advance. The said Laptop was financed by OP1. On 15.9.14 the complainant was shocked, when she received the telephonic call from OP1 that loan case of LED has been passed for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the complainant has to pay nine installments of Rs.4430/- each to OP1. Thereafter, the complainant approached OPs with a request to do the needful, but with no result.

7.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OP1 and OP2 argued that on 11.9.14 complainant approached OP2 and requested for financing an LED TV make Samsung Model 40H5500. The complainant submitted a consent form indicating her willingness to obtain loan from OP2, which was followed by the application form and the same was to be financed by OP1 and OP2 and a loan of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant, vide sanction letter dated 11.9.14 and the same was to be repayable in 13 EMIs. The complainant after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the loan, provided her consent and signed and accepted the Sanction letter and acknowledged the receipt of the General Terms and Conditions attached with the Sanction letter. Thereafter the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.17,320/-. Further argued that invoice no.292 dated 15.9.14 amounting to Rs.50,000/- clearly mentioning that the product was financed by “Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd.” i.e. OP1 and OP2. The said invoice was duly signed by the complainant, which evident the fact that the complainant took the delivery of Samsung LED TV and took the loan from OP1 and OP2 only for the purchase of Samsung LED TV. Further submitted that as the mode of payment was Direct Debit through ECS, the complainant directed her bank State Bank of India, Ludhiana to make the payment to answering OPs from her saving account no.33078691731 having MICR no.141002047 for Rs.4430/- per month. The complainant alongwith the ECS mandate also submitted the cancelled cheque to verify the bank details. The complainant also executed a promissory note for Rs.39,870/- in favour of the answering OPs.

8.                Ld. counsel for OP3 filed written arguments averring that the complainant is alleging in his complaint that he got financed the Laptop from OP1 and OP2, but later on he came to know that loan of LED was passed instead of Laptop for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant not only concealed the facts but also twisted the same to her own convenience and as such the complaint of the complainant deserves outright dismissal. There is no such allegations and negligence/deficiency in service qua the part of OP3. However no such Laptop was sold to the complainant through no.478. The alleged bill no.478 is a forged and fabtricated one. Moreover the alleged bill no.478 belongs to one Amanjot Singh and not the complainant, as such the present complainant is not legally maintainable as per law and is liable to be dismissed. Further argued that the alleged bill no.478 as supplied by the complainant is a original copy. However at the time of finance of any articles, the finance company retain the original copy of the bill and only duplicate copy is supplied to the complainant. Meaning thereby that the complainant has forged and fabricated the said bill, as such, the present complaint deserves dismissal.

9.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant and written arguments submitted on behalf of OP3 as well as defence taken by the OPs and also perused the entire record placed on file.

10.              It is evident that complainant purchased a LED and got it financed from OP2, as evident from Ex.RA and R9 and further conversation through e-mail, CD Ex.R12 and Ex.R5 clearly shows that the LED TV was purchased after raising a loan of Rs.50000/- from OP1 with a _EMIs and it is not understood that how the bill relating to Laptop in the name of some Amanjot Singh placed on record, which falsifies the entire complaint.

11.              Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                                 (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:17.06.2015   

Hardeep Singh