BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 108 of 2017
Date of Institution : 17.5.2017
Date of Decision : 30.1.2018.
Daljeet Kaur aged about 34 years wife of Shri Gulinder Singh, resident of 151-C, Street No.2, Shakti Nagar, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- J.P. Trading Company, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its owner.
- Bajaj Finance Ltd. 4th Floor, Survey #208/1-B, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is a Government Teacher by profession and she is having an account bearing No.30745759693 in State Bank of India, Sirsa. That op no.1 is an authorized dealer of electronics items whereas op no.2 is a finance company private limited having its local office at Sirsa. It is further averred that vide bill No.8507 dated 16.8.2015, the complainant had purchased a Videocon LED TV from op no.1 and got the same financed through op no.2. The said product was amounting to Rs.21,500/-, which was paid by op no.2 to op no.1 in cash and it was the complainant who had to pay the said amount to op no.2 in monthly installments. That after purchase of aforesaid electronic product, the complainant kept on making the payment of the installments to op no.2 without any interruption as op no.2 used to deduct the same from the above said bank account of the complainant directly. In this manner, the complainant never committed any irregularity or illegality in making the payment of the amount of installments and she was never declared defaulter in making the payment of the same. It is further averred that complainant in the month of November, 2016 cleared the loan account and nothing remained due against the complainant. After clearing the loan account, on the request of complainant, the op no.2 issued a “No Dues” certificate dated 17.11.2016 to the complainant declaring her to be free from the above loan facility. That now a few days ago, the complainant again visited the shop of op no.1 for purchase of another appliance and at her visit to the shop of op no.1, it was brought to the knowledge of the complainant that the warranty of the electronic product purchased by the complainant was extended by the ops. It was further disclosed to her that as she failed to make payment of the charges of extension of warranty of Rs.400/-, thus her EMI Card has been blocked. Further a penalty of Rs.5100/- was imposed upon her. The blockage of the EMI Card of the complainant as well as the penalty of Rs.5100/- imposed upon her by the ops is an illegal and unlawful act on the part of ops as they while extending the warranty of the product did not obtain the consent and permission of the complainant nor they had obtained her signatures over any document regarding the extension of warranty of the product, whereas legally the ops were bound to obtain the prior due consent of the complainant before extending the warranty of the product. As already submitted earlier, all the amount of installments have been deducted by the ops directly from the bank account of the complainant and similarly the amount of Rs.400/- regarding the extension of the warranty could have easily been deducted from her account but the ops intentionally and deliberately in order to impose penalty of Rs.5100/- upon the complainant did not deduct the amount of Rs.400/- from the account of complainant. Further no information in this regard was supplied to the complainant by ops. It was further disclosed by the ops that on account of blockage of her EMI Card, she would not be able to purchase any item on installments. That after coming to know about the above facts, the complainant approached the ops and requested them to revoke the penalty of Rs.5100/- and further to unblock her EMI Card enabling her to purchase further appliances as per her desire but the ops kept on throwing the complainant as a ball from one office of the ops to the other and now about two days ago they have flatly refused to unblock the EMI card of the complainant without the payment of the penalty amount of Rs.5100/-. That such and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they have committed gross negligence in their services and the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, humiliation and hardships and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that from the perusal of the contents of the entire complaint, it is transpired that the complainant is having grudge/ grievances only against the op no.2, whereas the op no.1 has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party with a view to harass, humiliate and nothing else. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate reply raising certain preliminary objections specially that as per clause 31 of the agreement entered between the complainant and opposite party, all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this loan agreement shall be settled by arbitration which is to be held at Pune in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had purchased the consumer durable from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.21,500/-. The monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.1792/- for a contract period of 12 months. The loan account as on date stands closed as the complainant has paid all the EMI’s on time and same is also getting reflected from the statement of account. It is further submitted that no objection certificate has also been handed over to the complainant. It is further submitted that that after the said fact was brought into the knowledge of op, it was observed that due to an inadvertent technical error in the system, an insurance loan was booked, however, the op has made an attempt to cancel the insurance loan account and refunded the amount which has been deducted from the complainant’s account dated 9th September, 2017 vide UTR No.CMS658310786 for an amount of Rs.810/- which is also reflecting from the statement of account.
4. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of no objection certificate Ex.PW1/A, copy of bill dated 16.8.2015 Ex.PW3/A and copy of her aadhar card Ex.PW4/A. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg as Ex.R1, copies of loan account statements Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and copy of terms and conditions Ex.R4. OP no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. During the course of arguments, Sh. A.S. Kalra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has suffered a statement in which he has stated that no amount is outstanding about the loan/ product against the account of complainant and they have not to take any amount from her and also not to give any amount to her. Moreover, it appear from the evidence of complainant that complainant has nothing to pay to opposite party no.2 nor op no.2 has to recover any amount from the complainant as loan amount has already been paid by complainant to op no.2 and NOC has been issued. But however, as per allegations of the complainant her EMI card was blocked without her any fault due to which she was harassed and humiliated due to the act of op no.2. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that it was due to human error and there was no intention behind blockage of the account of the complainant but the complainant deserves compensation for harassment and humiliation.
7. In view of the above, present complaint stands allowed and op no.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant qua harassment and humiliation suffered by her within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. However, no liability of op no.1 of any kind is made out. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
