…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

Argued by:  Shri Shamsher Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri C.D. Goel, counsel for the OPs.

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

             The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 30.06.2023, the complainant purchased a Vivo (Y-100A) mobile handset from Jindal Communication, Karnal i.e. OP no.1 for Rs.23999/-, vide invoice No.2072. At the time of purchase of said mobile set, complainant paid Rs.3000/- to the OP no.1 in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.20,999/- was got financed by the OP no.2. The complainant was asked to pay the said financed amount in nine installments of Rs.2471/- per month each.  The OPs started deducted the said EMIs directly from the complainant’s account no.0259000100662793 with Punjab National Bank Branch at G.T. Road, Karnal. The first installment of Rs.2471/- was deducted on 25.07.2023. The second installment of Rs.2471/- was deducted on 25.08.2023. But thereafter on 25.09.2023, OP no.2 had not deducted the next installment and then on 28.09.2023, the mobile handset of the complainant got locked by the OPs for two days without informing the complainant. Whereas there was sufficient amount in the complainant’s account. The complainant had to pay Rs.3000/- (i.e. Rs.2471/- as EMI and Rs.500/- as fine) towards third installment and then the OP got unlocked the mobile handset of the complainant. The fine of Rs.500/- has charged by the OP no.2 forcibly from the complainant. It is further averred that OP no.2 again got locked the mobile of the complainant without informing him at the time of fourth installment and thus complainant had to pay the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- through google pay. But despite getting the fourth installment, OP again deducted the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- from the account of complainant. Due to the locking of the device by the OP no.2, the complainant has to suffer huge loss as the entire work/earning of the complainant fully depends on the said mobile. OP is intentionally and deliberately harassing and humiliating the complainant unnecessarily and even the employees of the OPs are used to defame and sometimes abuse the complainant in the presence of other customers, which lower down the prestige of complainant in the society. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has been suffering from great mental pain agony and harassment as well as financial loss at the hands of the OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direct to the OPs to return Rs.2471/- which has charged twice on account of fourth installment, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder of unnecessary party and cause of action. On merits it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1, who has nothing to do with the alleged blocking of the mobile and also of charging any amount qua the installments or the alleged fine of Rs.500/- and the same is in between the complainant and OP no.2 from whom the complainant got his mobile phone financed. The complainant purchased the mobile set from the OP no.1, the sale consideration thereof was paid by the complainant whatsoever the means thereof either by getting the handset financed and after selling the mobile hand set there is no role of the OP no.1 since there is no complaint with regard to the hand set in any manner and all other allegations and averments made in the complaint are qua the OP no.2 to which the OP no.1 has got no concern in any manner. The handset was purchased from the OP no.1 and thereafter it was the complainant himself who got his handset financed from the OP no.2 and it was the complainant who agreed with the terms and conditions of the financed to which the OP no.1 has no concern. It is further pleaded that OP no1 has got no knowledge what was happened in between the complainant and the OP no.2. OP no.1 has nothing to do with the finance of the mobile set after the sale of the handset which handset is working efficiently and smoothly and there is no complaint with regard to the hand set and/or the services on the part of the OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had purchased a Vivo (Y-100A) mobile handset from OP no.1 for Rs.23,999/- and a sum of Rs.20,999/- had financed by the OP no.2 and said amount will pay in nine installments of Rs.2471/- per month each. It is wrong and denied that complainant had paid the installment on time. The third EMI was bounced due to reason “Account Frozen”. Complainant had paid the amount to OP no.1. It is denied that complainant had paid the fine of Rs.500/- to the OP no.2. Because complainant had neither shown any receipt nor any document regarding the receipt of payment. Complainant and OP no.1 made a conspiracy against the OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1, copy of account of statement with regard to deduction of 1^st installment on 25.11.2023 Ex.C2, copy of google.pay receipt regarding the payment of 2^nd installment on 29.09.2023 Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4, copy of message regarding locking of device Ex.C5, scanner of Jindal Communication at shop Ex.C6, copy of account statement of 26.10.2023 debit amount of Rs.2471/- Ex.C7, message regarding amount debit with Jindal Communication on 26.10.2023 of Rs.2471/- Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 14.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ayush Jindal proprietor Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Shiram authorized person Ex.OP2/A, copy of debit transaction Return memo Ex.OP2/1, copy of debit transaction Return memo Ex.OP2/2, copy of statement of account maintained by OP no.2 Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence on 02.07.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 30.06.2023,  complainant purchased a mobile from OP no.1 for Rs.23999/- and paid Rs.3000/- to the OP no.1 in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.20,999/- was got financed from the OP no.2. The said financed amount was to be repaid in nine installments of Rs.2471/- per month each.  The first installment was deducted on 25.07.2023 and second installment was deducted on 25.08.2023. On 25.09.2023, OP no.2 had not deducted the third installment whereas there was sufficient amount in the account of complainant and on 28.09.2023, the mobile of the complainant got locked by the OPs for two days without informing the complainant due to non-payment of installment. Then complainant paid Rs.3000/- (i.e. Rs.2471/- as EMI and Rs.500/- as fine) towards third installment. At the time of fourth installment, OP no.2 again got locked the mobile without informing the complainant. The complainant paid the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- through google pay. But despite getting the fourth installment, OP again deducted the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- from the account of complainant. Due to the locking of the device by the OP no.2, the complainant has to suffer financial loss. OP is intentionally and deliberately harassing and humiliating the complainant unnecessarily. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that OPs be directed not to make the bad entry in the CIBIL of the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 has nothing to do with the alleged blocking of the mobile and also of charging any amount qua the installments or the alleged fine of Rs.500/- and the same is in between the complainant and OP no.2 from whom the complainant got financed his mobile phone. The handset is working efficiently and smoothly and there is no complaint with regard to the hand set. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

10.           Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 (i.e. finance compay), while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased a Vivo  mobile handset from OP no.1 for Rs.23999/-. A sum of Rs.20,999/- got financed by the OPs and said amount was to be repaid in nine installments of Rs.2471/- per month each. The third EMI was bounced due to reason “Account Frozen”. Complainant had not paid the fine of Rs.500/- to the OPs. The complainant himself is a defaulter for not paying the installment in time and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Admittedly, complainant purchased the mobile in question from the OP no.1 and got insured the same with the OPs No.2 & 3. It is also admitted that the financed amount was to be repaid in nine installments of Rs.2471/- per month each.

13.           Complainant has alleged that when the third installment was due, instead of deducting the EMI from the account of complainant, the OPs (finance company) intentionally got locked the mobile set of complainant and also charged the Rs.500/- as a fine without any cogent reason.

14.            In para no.5 of the complainant, complainant specifically mentioned that OP no.2 again got locked the mobile of the complainant without informing him at the time of fourth installment and thus, complainant had paid fourth installment of Rs.2471/- through google.pay but despite getting the fourth installment, OPs again deducted the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- from the account of complainant. In reply of said para of the complaint, OPs (finance company) have admitted the contents of the said para.

15.           It is evident from the account statement Ex.C4, the OPs have deducted the fourth installment of Rs.2471/- despite that complainant had paid the said installment through google.pay. The said fact has also not denied by the OPs. Hence, it has been proved on the file that OPs have charged Rs.2471/- twice and also charged the fine of Rs.500/- on third installment. It is also evident from the copy of message Ex.C5, device of the complainant has been locked by the OPs. It is also evident from the copy of account statement Ex.C7 and from the message dated 26.10.2023 Ex.C8, OPs have deducted the EMI amount from the account of complainant. Hence, the act of the OPs (finance company) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.2971/- (Rs.500/ +Rs.2471/-) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. We further direct the OPs not to make the bad entry in the CIBIL of the complainant. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid by the OPs within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:05.11.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                       Member                        Member