M/S METRO REF. & ELECTRONICS V/S Shri Rohit Bhardwaj
Shri Rohit Bhardwaj filed a consumer case on 29 Apr 2024 against M/S METRO REF. & ELECTRONICS in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Apr 2024.
Delhi
North East
CC/19/2019
Shri Rohit Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S METRO REF. & ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)
29 Apr 2024
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST
The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party No.1 i.e. M/s Metro Ref. & Electronics, Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Punjab & Sind Bank and Opposite Party No.3 i.e. M/s Aditya Birla Finance alleging deficiency in services.
Case of the Complainant
The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 28.04.18 Complainant purchased one AC bearing model no. Haier W AC HW18CV3CR for a sum of Rs. 22,500/- vide invoice no. G 323 from Opposite Party No.1, the seller. The Complainant got financed his AC by Opposite Party No.2 (Bank of the Complainant), from Opposite Party No.3 (Finance company) under consumer loan account no. LXWM04718-190032780. The executive of Opposite Party No.3 received all documents from Complainant and informed about the EMI of Rs. 1,875/-. Thereafter on 06.06.18 first instalment was deducted from account of Complainant i.e. with Opposite Party No.2 and on 06.07.18 the second instalment was not deducted. Thereafter, Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 regarding non-deduction of instalment and contacted customer care of Opposite Party No.3 who informed that due to “signature differs”, the ECS could not be deducted. The Opposite Party No.3 also told Complainant that due to technical error, Complainant needed to fill ECS form again and Complainant agreed to the same. The Complainant signed ECS form again after two days, but ECS of August was again not hit and Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 again on the same day and was told that it will take some time to process and told Complainant to pay EMI through paytm and Complainant made payment through paytm. Again in September the EMI was not deducted and Opposite Party No.3 gave false assurance to solve the issue and told Complainant to pay EMI through paytm. Complainant stated that there was sufficient balance in his account despite that Opposite Party charged the bouncing charges and the later payment charges from the Complainant and due to this conduct of Opposite Party, CIBIL of Complainant got worse. The Complainant had also served legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 24.12.18 but all in vain. Hence, the Complainant filed the present complaint praying for the directions to the Opposite Parties to rectify the problem and deduct the illegal charges from his loan account and compensation for damaging his CIBIL account and litigation charges.
Despite service, no one has entered appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.11.19.
Case of the Opposite Party No.2
The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement taking preliminary objections interalia that the Complainant or Opposite Party No.3 never generated any ECS with Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that the payment of Rs. 1875/- made on 06.06.2018 has been debited from the account of Complainant through cheque no. 000073 and not by ECS. It is also contended by Opposite Party No.2 that the instalment of July did not get hit into the account of the Complainant since ECS facility was never generated with the answering bank. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter and allegations are false and baseless, hence, the complaint should be dismissed.
Case of the Opposite Party No.3
The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.3 admits that the subject loan was issued to the Complainant by them and Complainant himself agreed to repay the said loan through Electronic clearing system and executed an ECS mandate form. It is contended by Opposite Party No.3 that they sent the said mandate to the Complainant’s bank through its transaction processing service provider Indusand Bank but the Complainant’s bank i.e. Punjab and Sindh bank, Opposite Party No.2 did not register the ECS form due to “signature differs” and consequently the instalment for month of June was deducted through cheque. It is also submitted that upon non-registration of ECS mandate, they informed the Complainant telephonically and requested the Complainant to [provide fresh mandate or else to make the payment through available channels until the ECS is registered by the Complainant’s bank. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.3 was not under duly to inform or remind or send notice under the terms and conditions of the loan. It was the duty of the Complainant to make the timely payment of loan instalments. Through authorised repayment channels. Hence, there has been no deficiency on their part and the present complaint must be dismissed against them.
Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2
It is to be noted that the Complainant has not filed any rejoinder to the reply of Opposite Party No.2.
Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3
The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.
Evidence of the Complainant
The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.
Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2 & 3
In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Sh. Kunal Saurabh, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 filed affidavit of Sh. Sahil Kumar Soni, Regional Legal Manager of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the averments made in their respective written statements have been supported.
Arguments & Conclusion
We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3.
It is the case of the Complainant that the loan availed by the Complainant from Opposite Party No.3 was to be repaid and he executed an ECS mandate form and only first instalment was deducted while second instalment did not hit into his account. Upon inquiry he was informed that his ECS mandate has been rejected due to signature difference and he was asked to fill fresh form for ECS. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.3 got filled signed another ECS form, but the instalment for next month still did not hit and the Complainant had to pay the Emi through paytm App. The allegation of the Complainant is that despite having sufficient balance in his account, the instalment was not deducted in time and he was charged late payment and bouncing charges by the Opposite Parties and his CIBIL has also got bad for no fault on his part. hence, deficiency in service.
On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1, the seller has not contested the case. The case of Opposite Party No.2 being the Complainant’s bank is the first instalment of the subject loan was debited from the account of Complainant through cheque no. 000073 and not by ECS. It is also contended by Opposite Party No.2 that the instalment of July did not get hit into the account of the Complainant since ECS facility was never generated with the answering bank.
The case of Opposite Party No.3 , finance company is that they duly sent the ECS mandate of the Complainant but the same was rejected by Complainant’s bank. They were not under obligation to inform the Complainant about the non-registration of the ECS; however, they informed the Complainant about that. It is also asserted that it was the duly of Complainant to make the timely payment.
As per the complaint, the allegation of the Complainant is that he executed an ECS mandate form and due to deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties, the loan instalment was not deducted from his account timely and he had to pay through paytm app and he was charged late payment fee illegally. It is contended by the Complainant that while first instalment was deducted, the second instalment did not hit into his account while the contention of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 is that ECS was never generated.
The perusal of the material on record shows that the Complainant has not rebutted the contention that the ECS was never generated. The Complainant has also wrongly alleged that while the first instalment was deducted through ECS, second was not. It is clear from the copy of the bank account statement of the Complainant relied upon by the Complainant’s bank in their defence that the first instalment was paid through cheque and the Complainant has failed to show any evidence in rebuttal. The Complainant has also alleged that Opposite Party No.3 did not inform him about the non-registration of ECS. Opposite Party 3 has taken defence that they were not under obligation as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. The Complainant has not been able to rebut the said defence, hence, defence is accepted. Moreover, it is admitted by the Complainant himself that he filled fresh ECS form after the first one was rejected. Under these circumstances, we can not expect from the Complainant that he was waiting for the next EMI to be deducted from his account through ECS and holding Opposite Parties responsible for non-payment/late payment. Moreover, it was totally his responsibility to assure whether the ECS mandate has been approved by his bank or not and then to make timely payment of loan instalment through other authorised payment channels.
The Complainant has failed to show any cogent evidence in support of his contention that ECS was generated and despite that the EMI was not deducted timely. The Complainant has also failed to prove his contention that Opposite Party 3 was under obligation to inform him about the rejection of ECS mandate. Therefore, Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for deficiency in services towards the Complainant.
In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for deficiency in services against the Opposite Parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order announced on 29.04.24.
Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Adarsh Nain)
Member
(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.