BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.66 of 2016
Date of Instt. 03.02.2016
Date of Decision :10.01.2017
Balbir Singh Rathour Age 43 years, S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Resident of H.No.160-C, Baba Balak Nath Nagar, Near Bhagat Singh Colony, Jalandhar. Mob No.95015-33712
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Mobile House, HO: Chadha Mobile Pvt. Ltd. Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar Through its Prop/Partner/Director/Authorized Representative.
2. Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Infinity Town C, 10-B, 10th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 Through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Representative.
........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite Party No.1 exparte.
Sh. AS Thind, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a Mobile handset for Rs.20,500/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.32273 dated 16.09.2014. The opposite party No.1 allured and induced the complainant by tempting to get financed the handset in installments on Zero percent interest under Super Saver Scheme launched by opposite party No.2 through their agent sitting in the show room of opposite party No.1 on the assurance and told that if 8 monthly installment @ Rs.1360/- per month i.e. Rs.10880/- be paid and the outstanding loan amount Rs.1920/- be given after 8 monthly payment, no interest shall be charged. On the inducement of the opposite parties the complainant was agreed to get financed Rs.12,800/- for above said mobile handset on Zero percent interest scheme. The rest amount was given in cash by complainant to opposite party No.1. After remittance the payment of Rs.10,880/- in eight installment, the balance remained Rs.1920/- which are deposited and as such the full and final payment Rs.12,800/- was given to opposite parties. After receipt of the full and final payment Rs.12,800/- the opposite parties should had closed the case but despite remittance of full and final payment, the opposite party No.2 withdrawn extra two installments amounting to Rs.2720/- i.e. 1320/- from bank account of complainant through ECS. When the complainant asked the reason for withdrawal of extra two installments amounting to Rs.2720/- from the bank account of complainant, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the case was extended for 12 months on account of delayed payment of one installment for five days. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 if payment of one installment was delayed for 4-5 days then its penalty could have been imposed only for the delayed period instead of charging excess amount but the opposite party No.2 did not agree with the proposal of complainant. The complainant gave all the installments on due date but one installment could not be given on due date because of some ECS technical fault of bank. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to take minor penalty for delayed period of 4-5 days but the opposite party disagreed.
2. That several times the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to refund the excess charged amount Rs.2720/- as the entire full and final payment was received by opposite party No.2 but despite several requests and so many telephonic calls made by complainant to opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 has not reverted the excess charged amount of Rs.2720/- which tantamount of unfair trade practice and indulged to negligence and deficiency in service and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.2720/- and further to give the cost of litigation Rs.3300/- and to give compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No.1 did not come present and ultimately, he was proceeded against exparte.
4. Whereas opposite party No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complaint is not maintainable either on the facts or in the eyes of law, as the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed and distorted the real facts. In fact, the complainant has suppressed material facts, though it was the obligation of the complainant to speak the truth and further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering opposite parties. On merits para No.1 of the complaint is admitted in regard to purchase the mobile but the remaining contents of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 and then closed the evidence.
6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP2/A and some documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
7. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After taking into consideration over all factum as elaborated in the pleadings and put forth before us by the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP, we find that the complainant get a service from the OP No.2 i.e. for getting the loan for purchase of handset. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a mobile set from OP No.1 for Rs.20,500/- and out of that amount the complainant paid in cash Rs.8599/- and upon remaining amount, complainant get a loan from OP No.2 with the agreement that the complainant will return the said amount by way of installment of Rs.1360/- regarding that a document were prepared between complainant and OP No.2 which are bill of the mobile Ex.C1 and loan sanctioned letter Ex.C2 and statement account Ex.C3 and in order to controvert the document of the complainant the OP has also brought on the file affidavit of Gaurav Sharma Ex.OP2/A and consent form Ex.OP2/1, application form Ex.OP2/2, declaration Ex.OP2/3, sanctioned letter Ex.OP2/4, delivery advice Ex.OP2/5, mobile bill Ex.OP2/6 and electronic clearing system application Ex.OP2/7 and statement of account Ex.OP2/8.
9. After going through all the documents it reveals from the loan sanctioned letter that there is a contract between the complainant and OP No.2 that if the complainant deposited the total loan amount Rs.12800/- by way of 8 monthly installment of Rs.1360/- per month (i.e. 10880/-) be paid and the outstanding loan amount Rs.1920/- be given after 8 month payment then the loan financed to the complainant will be 0% interest under Super Saver Scheme launched by OP No.2 and these factum have been very well mentioned in the loan sanctioned letter Ex.OP2/4 but the version of the OP is that the complainant failed to make the payment of installment within time rather he paid all installments after due date and accordingly as per contract the complainant is liable to pay interest thereon at the agreed rate as mentioned in the loan sanctioned letter Ex.OP2/4 and also liable to pay penalty charges and under these circumstances to excess installment of Rs.1320/- was deducted from account of the complainant. We find that the version put forth by the OP is not true version because there is one crucial letter which is very important to decide the matter in hand the said letter produced on the file by the OP itself which is Ex.OP2/7 as per this letter the complainant is not required to deposit monthly installment rather he gave a consent through this letter Ex.OP2/7 that the OP No.2 is authorized to debt his account for making payment to Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd. through ECS and it is also mentioned in this letter the starting period of deduction through ECS i.e. 16.10.2014 to 29.09.2015 amount of Rs.1360/- per month. So, it means that if there is any delay to deposit the monthly installment then it cannot be fastened to the complainant rather it is the duty of the OP No.2 to get transfer the installment amount through ECS as agreed as per letter Ex.OP2/7 which is signed by the complainant Balbir Singh Rathour whereby he authorized OP No.2 to get the installment through ECS. So, under these circumstances there is no fault on the part of the complainant and he is entitled for free loan facility as provided by the OP No.2 by way of Super Saver Scheme and accordingly if any excess amount is deducted by OP No.2 the same is required to return to the complainant and accordingly we find that complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In the light of the above detail discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and same is partly accepted and OP No.2 is directed to return the excess amount of Rs.2720/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of deduction from the account of the complainant and OP No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- for harassment to the complainant and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
10.01.2017 Member President
