Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a SONY LED TV being financed by Opposite Party no.1 on payment of Rs.5000/- towards the advance EMI and agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 16,652/- in eighteen number of instalments each with effect from 4.2.2019. It is also the case of the complainant is that complainant has got account in State Bank of India being maintained by opposite party no.3. It is agreed that the EMI would be debited from the account of the complainant maintained by opposite party no.3 and to be paid to opposite party no.1. It is alleged that during March, 2020, due to Corona, there was some disturbance in payment of the instalments. However, later on, money is paid. But the complainant protested the loss due to deduction of the loan instalments, whether rightly paid or not. Therefore, he filed the complaint petition.
4. The Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were set ex parte. But the opposite party no.3 filed written version stating that the instalments have been deducted from 2.4.2019 to 2.3.2020. Thereafter, no deduction made towards instalments. There was twenty one transactions made towards recovery of ECS returned charges. They denied the deficiency of service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The complainant case is allowed against the O.P.No.3 and dismissed against the O.P.No.1 and 2, therefore the OP.No.3 is hereby directed to refund the charges from April, 2020 onwards. Apart from the O.P.No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.5000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 45 days of the date of this order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12% P.A. till the date of payment. Accordingly, the C.C. disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of March, 2021.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the case, the opposite party no.1 has already recovered the entire loan amount from the complainant and issued NOC. The appellant has no role in payment of the total loan amount. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that they have already got their amount and NOC has been issued to the complainant and during the pendency of the case, there is no laches on their part.
8. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. In view of the fact that the loan amount has been discharged and the appellant is only account holder, we find deficiency of service is hardly to be necessary to be found out. However, deficiency being removed, we do not find that the impugned order should be maintained. Therefore, the same is set aside. The Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any, on proper identification.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.