Delhi

North East

CC/450/2022

Ravendra Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shiam Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.450/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ravendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma, R/o H.No. 7/376, 378, First Floor, Left Side, Doonger Mohalla, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.                 4.	M/s Shiam Enterprises, 7/74-A, Bhim Gali Main, 60 Ft. Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032   HDB Financial Services Ltd., Ground Floor, Zenith house, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Opp. Race Course, Mahalaxmi,  Mumbai 400034   HDB Financial Services Ltd., 65/10, First Floor, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parvat, New Delhi 110005   Also at: Radhika, 2nd Floor, Law Garden Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380009   The Branch Manager UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

19.12.2022 15.04.2024 31.07.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 03.05.2022 he had purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 26,500/-. The Complainant paid the down payment of Rs. 9,660/-to Opposite Party 1 and rest of the amount was financed  by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 for which the complainant had to pay in 8 EMIs of   Rs. 2,346/-. It is the case of the Complainant that though he had paid the six EMIs to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 from 26.06.2022 to 04.11.2022, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 demanded again the EMI of Rs. 2,346/- for the month of October 2022 which was already paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 in the month of October 2022. Complainant stated that he visited the office of Opposite Parties to resolve the grievance but Opposite Parties did not resolve the same. Complainant alleged that his CIBIL score was more than 700 but from the said acts and deeds of the Opposite Parties, the CIBIL score of the Complainant was decreased to less than 400. The complainant had sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to resolve the grievance immediately and Rs. 1,51,000/- towards mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- on account of litigation expenses and direct the Opposite Parties to correct the CIBIL score of the Complainant.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party     No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party     No. 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2023.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. They have objected to the complaint on the ground that under the complaint, no relief has been sought against them and prayed to be removed from the array of the parties. It is submitted that issue is related to loan services concerning with Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No. 4 and it has nothing to do with them. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4.  The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri. Mohit Aggarwal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1.
8. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one refrigerator from Opposite Party No. 1 which was financed by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 and the loan was repayable  in 8 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,346/- . It is alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 demanded from him the EMI of Rs. 2,346/- for the month of October 2022 while he had already paid to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 in the month of October 2022. The Complainant alleged that the because of that, his CIBIL score went down. The Complainant has relied upon the copy of downloaded loan summary by Opposite Party No.  2 and Opposite Party No. 3, copy of his Bank account statement etc. in support of his case.
9. Perusal of the evidence led by the Complainant shows that as per the loan  summary issued by the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. HDB Financial Services Ltd., the installment unpaid was showing as one in number and the amount overdue was showing on the loan account of Complainant. The copy of bank account statement of the Complainant clearly shows that the said installment was already paid which shows deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. HDB Financial Services Ltd.
10.  In view of above facts and discussion as well as unrebutted averments of the Complainant, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. HDB Financial Services Ltd. have been deficient in services towards the Complainant jointly and severally.
11.  Thus, the present complaint is allowed in following terms:

1. Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. HDB Financial Services Ltd are directed to pay jointly and severally to the Complainant an amount Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
2. The Complainant’s prayer for rectification of his CIBIL score cannot be allowed in view of the fact that Opposite Parties being financial institutions are not authorized to do that, however, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for the rectification/correction/  upgradation of his CIBIL Score in accordance with law.

12. Order announced on 31.07.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)