BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.143 of 2017
Date of Instt. 10.05.2017
Date of Decision: 07.03.2018
Sh. Satpal aged 57 years son of Sh. Ami Chand resident of House No.15/B, Mohalla Panj Peer Colony, Basti Peer Dad, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (Head Office) Greater Noida, Delhi-1584 through its Managing Director.
2. Bhamba Autos Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Focal Point, Amritsar Bye Pass Road, Jalandhar through its Director Manish Bhamba.
3. Bajaj Finserv, Shop No.203, 204, 1st Floor, Sahota Commercial Complex Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Bus Stand, Green Park, Jalandhar City, Through its Managing Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Sidharth Puri, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Satnam Singh, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 and 3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.2 deals in Electronics item etc. under the name and style of M/s Bhamba Autos Pvt. Ltd., at Opp. Focal Point, Amritsar Bye Pass Road, Jalandhar. The complainant had purchased LG LED Television Model No.32LF553 TP 603PLYZ117954, for amounting to Rs.23,500/- on 06.05.2016, vide Invoice No.73. At the time of purchase of the said LG LED, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.13,500/- and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was financed from OP No.3 being a financier. As settled between the parties, at the time of financing the above mentioned amount of Rs.10,000/-, first installment of Rs.1230/- was deducted from the account of the complainant, but after that OP No.3 started deducting the amount of Rs.2319/- from the bank account of the complainant without any reason or liability, which is totally illegal and unlawful on their part.
2. That on 06.07.2016, up-til January 2017, the OP No.3 had deducted an amount of Rs.2319/- per month from the bank account of the complainant instead of Rs.1230/- per month and an amount of Rs.7623/- (i.e. 1089 Ӽ 7 months) has been excessively charged from complainant without any liability of the complainant. After coming to know about this fact, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and 3 many times, but OP No.2 and 3 neither returned back the said amount to the complainant nor gave any satisfactory reply although complainant has been harassing by OP due to above mentioned acts and conduct. By doing the above mentioned acts, OPs have cheated the complainant by deducting excess amount more than the fixed EMI, which is totally illegal and unlawful on their part, for which the OPs are liable to be prosecuted. The complainant was put to inconvenience and mental agony and that there was deficiency and negligence in services on the part of the OP and thereafter, a legal notice was served upon the OP on 30.03.2017, but all in vain and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.7623/- excessively charged from the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 and 3 did not come present and accordingly, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. OP No.1 served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same has been filed only to unnecessarily harass the answering OP. The answering OP has nothing to do with the present complaint as the dispute is only between the complainant and OP No.2 and 3 regarding the finance of the product sold by OP No.2 to the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable, it is gross misuse of process of law and further alleged that no legal and valid cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint and as such, the complaint is liable to the dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase the LG LED TV from OP No.2 is reply in the manner that it is matter of record, but the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C-1 Legal Notice dated 30.03.2017, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 Postal Receipts, Ex.C-5 Reply to Legal Notice dated 19.04.2017, Ex.C-6 Copy of Bill dated 06.05.2016, Ex.C-7 Statement of Account of Bajaj Finserv of the complainant, Ex.C-8 Email written by OP No.3 dated 18.01.2017, Ex.C-9 Email dated 14.02.2017, Ex.C-10 Email dated 15.03.2017, Ex.C-11 Bank Account Statement of the complainant from 01.06.2016 to 22.02.2017 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. Admittedly, in this case, the complainant has not claimed any relief from the OP No.1 because the OP No.1 is manufacturing of the LG TV and further admittedly, the complainant purchased one LG LED TV from OP No.2, who is dealer of the OP No.1 and further some amount of the price of the said TV was got financed by the complainant from OP No.3 and claim of the complainant is only to the extent that the OP No.3 deducted excessive amount of loan installment from the account of the complainant. So, it means the directly dispute of the complainant is with OP No.3/Bajaj Finance Company, but the said OP No.3, despite service did not come present and proceeded against exparte.
9. We have considered the plea taken by the complainant that the complainant got financed a sum of Rs.10,000/- for purchase of the LG TV, from OP No.3 and it was settled that the installment will be Rs.1230/- per month, but as per allegation of the complainant, the OP No.3 started deducting the amount of Rs.2319/- as installment from the bank account of the complainant without any reason or liability, which is totally illegal and unlawful on their part and further alleged that the OP No.3 had deducted the aforesaid excess amount from 06.07.2016 upto January, 2017, means the total excessive amount deducted from the account of the complainant is Rs.7623/- and for this negligence, the complainant claimed the refund of aforesaid amount alongwith interest, compensation as well as litigation expenses.
10. No doubt, in order to establish that the OP No.3 deducted excessive installment amount from the account of the complainant for that purpose, the complainant produced on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reiterated the entire facts as detailed in the complaint and further also produced on the file Legal Notice Ex.C-1, Postal Receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 as well as Retail Invoice Ex.C-6, but in the said Invoice, there is a column i.e. the name of Financier, but the said column is blank. So, from the Invoice, it is not established that the complainant had got financed the said LG LED TV from OP No.3, if virtually got financed, then the name of the financier must be mentioned in the specific column, created in the Retail Invoice and further, it is necessary to establish on the file that the financier/OP No.3 had paid the financed amount of Rs.10,000/- to the dealer i.e. OP No.2, from whom the complainant purchased the TV in question, but no such evidence has been brought on the file by the complainant. Further, the complainant has brought on the file Loan Statement Account Ex.C-7, this Loan Statement of Account contains two pages and from the fist page, it is inspired that the loan amount is Rs.8707/- and monthly installment is Rs.1089/- and second page shows that the total loan amount is Rs.12,300/- and monthly installment is Rs.1230/-. So, it means that the second page of the Loan Statement account relates to the case of the complainant and accordingly, if we go through the said second page of the Loan Statement Account, then we can say without any hesitation that the monthly installment deducted by the OP No.3 is not more than Rs.1230/- per month and further this statement of account is co-related with the statement of account Ex.C11 of the Bank Account of the complainant, then we again say that one installment was deducted from this bank account on 06.06.2016 i.e. Rs.1230/- and only one time amount of Rs.2319/- has been deducted from the account on 05.07.2016, but that amount goes to some other party instead of financier OP No.3. So, from the Statement of account i.e. Loan Statement Account as well as Bank Statement of the complainant itself not proved on the file that the OP No.3 financier ever deducted the amount of Rs.2319/- as monthly installment from the account of the complainant, if so then, the complainant himself could not able to prove the allegation as made in the complaint, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief because if it is not proved on the file that any excessive amount in the name of monthly installment, has been deducted by the OP No.3, then how we can fasten any liability or negligence as well as deficiency on the part of the OP. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
07.03.2018 Member President
