DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.151/2009

Dr. Girish Nath Jha

S/o Dr. Ganga Nath Jha,

R/o W 4, Mandavi Hostel,

JNU, New Delhi                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s DKs Show

          Through its Proprietor

          Sh. Naresh Khattar

          50/4, Yusuf Sarai Market,

          New Delhi-110016

2.       M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Limited

          C/o Bajaj Auto Limited

          Mumbai-Pune Road,

          Akurdi, Pune

          Maharashtra

          Also at:

          M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Limited

          Industrial Area,

          Naraina Industrial Estate,

          Delhi-110028                                                   ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution        :04.03.09     Date of Order      : 01.12.18   

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Facts of the complaint in nutshell are:-

1. The complainant, Dr. Girish Nath Jha wanted to purchase an LCD TV from OP No.1 i.e. M/s DKs Show who was an authorized dealer of LG Home Appliances. He was suggested by OP No.1 to take an interest free loan from OP No.2 i.e. Bajaj Auto Finance.  
   1. Price of the TV was negotiated at Rs.90,000/- with an old TV exchange without getting the LG DVD player. Rs.30,000/- was to be paid as down payment and remaining Rs.60,000/- was to be paid by OP No.2 if the loan was approved. Next day, the complainant brought all the listed documents for approval of loan but OP No.2’s representative informed that some other documents like passport size photo etc. were missing. However, OP No.1 asked the complainant to make the down payment of Rs.30,600/- and bring the remaining documents on the next day. The complainant paid the money and got a receipt dated 12.10.08 which says that the complainant will have to pay balance sum of Rs.60,000/-  in 8 installments of Rs.7,500/- each. The complainant submits that all this was done prior to the sanction of loan from OP No.2.
   2. On 13.10.08 the complainant visited OP No.1 again and gave the remaining documents to OP No.2. He enquired from OP No.1 when will the TV be delivered to the complainant. OP No.1 assured him that it will be delivered by 15.10.08. But on enquiry again on 15.10.08 the complainant was told that the model required by the complainant was not available with LG and the fresh supply will be coming by 17.10.08. To the disappointment of the complainant on enquiry he was again told that the TV was still not available and it will be imported from Korea. OP No.1 also  claimed that this TV was not available with any dealer or LG in Delhi.
   3.  On 23.10.08 the complainant visited another dealer in Lajpat Nagar and found that they not only have this model but also offered it at a better deal. The complainant also learnt that OP No.2 might have already paid the loan amount to OP No.1. The complainant insisted that as promised the OP No.1 should procure the TV from the dealer in Lajpat Nagar and supply to him. It is further averred that the complainant was wishing that the TV be delivered to his house by Dhanteras as it is considered auspicious to buy new items during these days but none of these things happened.
   4. On 26.10.08 the OP No.1 told the complainant to come and collect the down payment of Rs.30,600/- as the said model was not available with LG.  The complainant collected the cheque of Rs. 30,600/- from OP No.1. The complainant on receipt of payment specifically mentioned that he is cancelling the deal due to non-delivery of the product by OP No.1 despite taking so many days. The complainant also asked for returning the loan papers, OP No.1 informed him that that the loan papers had already been sent to OP No.2 and will be returned by mail at the earliest. It is next averred that the complainant alleges that OP No.1 did not say whether the balance loan amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to him by the OP No.2 or not. The complainant further submits that at no point of time the OP No.2 informed him regarding the approval of the loan.
   5. It is next stated that the complainant on 27.10.08 purchased the LCD TV of the model required by paying Rs.61,200/- by credit card and the  complainant  paid the balance amount of Rs.31,000/- by cheque upon delivery.
   6. To complainant’s shock, on 27.11.08 the complainant needed some money urgently to buy air tickets, he went to the SBI ATM to withdraw money but the account did not have enough money. Later it was found that OP No.2 had withdrawn the first installment of Rs.7500/- on 17.11.08. It is further averred that the OP No.2 had tried to withdraw the second and third installment too from the complainant’s bank account on 15.12.08 & 30.12.08 but they could not withdraw the money as the bank did not have sufficient funds at that time and the same got dishonoured. Few days later the representative of OP No.2 came to the complainant’s house and threatened the complainant’s family members that the legal action would be taken if arrears of EMIs of the amount were not paid within 10 days.
   7. The complainant alleges that it is very clear from the above circumstances that OP No.1 had not informed OP No.2 about the cancellation of the deal and had not returned the loan papers to the complainant. Hence, the complainant  has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:-

1. Direct the OP No.1 to pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- for harassment, false promises, misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, consuming the valuable times as well as mental agony suffered by the complainant on account of OP No.1.
2. Direct the OP No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- as damages against the OPs for mental harassment, loss of pain and agony.
3. Direct the OP No.1 to pay for additional price that the complainant had spent in purchasing the LCD TV from other retailers which amounts to Rs.10,000/-.
4. Direct the OP No.2 to give an explanation, why he did not informed the complainant  on the fate of the complainant’ s loan application, and why the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to OP No.1.
5. Direct the OP No.2 to return a sum of Rs.7,500/- alongwith interest immediately and pay appropriate compensation to this effect.
6. Direct the OP No.2 to return all the documents furnished to the OP No.1 by the complainant for sanctioning the loan and further direct the OP No.1 not to withdraw any further amount as EMI from the account of the complainant.

2. OP No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its written statement.  OP No.1 states that on 11.10.08 the complainant approached OP No.1 at their showroom and expressed his desire to purchase an LCD TV (47LG60FR Scarlet). OP No.1 informed the complainant that said model of TV would cost him Rs.90,000/- but was not available in their showroom as the same was a big TV and was arranged by them on orders.  OP No. 1 averred that they further informed the complainant that they are only into sales of product and the entire finance etc. is handled by Bajaj Auto Finance (OP No.2) who have been authorized by the LG company.
3. OP No.1 alleges that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint qua the OP No.1 as despite having received entire booking amount from OP No.1 which is duly acknowledged by the complainant and having purchased the LCD from another dealer the complainant does not have legal or justifiable grounds. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  Thereafter, OP No.1 was proceeded exparte on 20.04.11.
4. OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.06.09
5. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed by complainant wherein averments made in the complaint are reiterated.
6. No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
7. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
8. Though averments made in the complaint have been controverted by OP in his written statement but OP-1 chose  not substantiate the pleadings by leading evidence as OP stopped appearing after filing the written statement and was proceeded against exparte.
9. It is evident from the record that the complainant made down payment of Rs. 30,600/- and got a receipt dated 12.10.08 for the purchase of LCD TV (47LG60FR Scarlet) from OP No.1.  The complainant promised to pay balance amount of Rs.60,000/- in 8 installment of Rs.7,500/- each after getting the loan approved by OP No.2. We mark the receipt dated 12.10.08 as Mark A for the purposes of identification. The complainant after waiting for 10 days and sending frequent reminders to the OP No.1 to provide him with the above said TV was disappointed when OP-1 told him that it will take few days more to arrange for the said model of TV. Complainant’s urgency to get a TV was that as Dhanteras was round the corner he wanted the TV to be delivered soon as it is considered auspicious to buy new items during these days. Therefore, he found that a dealer in Lajpat Nagar not only had the same model but also offered better deal than OP-1.
10. The complainant purchased the TV from the new dealer and informed the OP No.1 about the cancellation of the deal.  OP No.1 protested and informed the complainant that he was arranging for the said model of TV especially for the complainant  as it was a big TV and it had to be arranged from outside.  Finally, on 26.10.08 OP No.1 told the complainant to come and collect the down payment of Rs.30,600/-. The complainant collected the cheque of the same amount and at the time of receiving the payment the complainant specifically mentioned that he was cancelling the deal due to non- delivery of the product by OP No.1 despite taking so many days. The complainant asked for returning the loan papers but the OP No.1 told that loan papers had already been sent to the OP No.2 but will be returned to him at the earliest.
11.  To utter shock of the complainant on 27.11.08, the complainant  came to know that OP No.2 had withdrawn the first installment of Rs.7,500/- on 17.11.08 despite him asking OP No.1 to inform OP No.2 about the cancellation of the deal on 26.10.08.  OP No.1 in its written statement alleges that the entire finance work was of OP No.2 and all documents relating to finance including PDC were handed by the complainant to the representative of OP No.2 and OP No.2 is authorized by the LG Company.  OP No.1 in its written statement admits that the complainant met with executive of OP No.2 and enquired about the loan facility in the showroom of OP No.1. Even the list of the documents provided for the loan facility is written on the registration form of OP No.1 which we mark as Mark B for the sake of identification.
12.  It is clear from the facts stated above the OP No.2 was operating from the showroom of OP No.1. OP No.1 was a dealer of LG product and OP No.2 was also authorized by LG company to provide loan facility. It is not a case where the complainant on his own had approached OP No.2 for loan in his office. OP No.1 by letting OP No.2 operate from his showroom had facilitated in sanctioning of the loan. Hence, OP No.1 was bound to inform OP No.2 about the cancellation of deal when he returned the down payment to the complainant. Therefore, this Forum is of the opinion that OP No.1 is deficient in service to the extent that he failed to inform OP No.2 about the cancellation of deal and hence put the complainant to loss of Rs.7500/- alongwith lot of inconvenience and harassment.
13. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.7,500 alongwith interest @ 6% to the complainant  from the date of refund of down payment i.e. 26.10.08 till realization within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which OP No.1 shall pay Rs.7500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from 26.10.08 till realization. Additionally OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant  towards compensation for causing harassment, mental agony to the complainant including cost of litigation. 
14. Needless to say documents furnished to OP-2 for sanctioning of loan shall not be used elsewhere.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 01.12.18.