Punjab

Sangrur

CC/43/2018

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahaluxmi Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Kumar Bhalla

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    43

                                                Instituted on:      02.02.2018

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2018

 

Amrik Singh aged about 41 years son of Jaimal Singh, resident of H.No.332, Prem Basti, Street No.4, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Mahaluxmi Enterprises, Patiala Gate, Sangrur thorough its Proprietor/Partner.

2.     Bajaj Finance Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Munish Kumar, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amrik Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by purchasing one mobile set A-37 Oppo Gold for Rs.9500/- vide bill number 0024 dated 20.7.2017, which was got financed from the OP number 2 and the amount was repayable in six equated monthly instalment of Rs.1600/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that instead of Rs.1600/- per month, the Op has recovered the instalment of Rs.1932/- per month i.e. Rs.332/- per month in excess which is illegal and without any basis. Though the complainant requested the Op to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1328/- so recovered in excess, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.1328/- illegally recovered from the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of OP number 1 in respect of present dispute and that the complaint is false and maintainability of the complaint is also disputed. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the relationship between the complainant and the OP is pursuant to the contract entered into between the parties and that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from Op number 1 and had availed a loan from the Op for an amount of Rs.9990/- dated 22.7.2017 and the monthly EMI was Rs.1665/- per month for a period of six months and the said amount has been fully paid by the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant also availed the insurance towards the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.1333/- of which monthly instalment was Rs.267/- which has been recovered.  It is stated further that no excess amount has been recovered from the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in tot. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 20.7.2017 for Rs.9500/- by getting financed the same from OP number 1, of which the complainant had to pay Rs.1665/-per month in six equated monthly instalments.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 recovered the amount of Rs.1932/- per month instead of Rs.1665/- meaning thereby the OP number 2 recovered an amount of Rs.267/- per month in excess for five months, which amount comes to Rs.1335/-.  It is worth mentioning here that though the OP number 2 has alleged that the said amount of Rs.1333/- has been recovered on account of insurance in five instalments, but we are unable to go with such contention of the learned counsel for OP number 2 as the OP number 2 has failed to produce iota of evidence on record, much less to prove the insurance and the insurance policy, if any.  Even the name of the insurance company from whom the insurance was got done has not been mentioned in the written reply nor any documentary evidence has been produced on record by OP number 2.  Under the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP number 2 that the amount has been charged on account of insurance.  As such, we feel it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 only.

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1328/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery till its realisation in full. We further direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 4, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member