Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/23

Ms Meenu Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Video Vision - Opp.Party(s)

sunil Kapoor Rep.

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

   Consumer Complaint No. :   23 of  07.01.2015

Date of Decision            :   12.08.2015

 

Ms.Meenu Kapoor wife of Sh.Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block 1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Video Vision Sales Corporation, Kammy Plaza, Kailash Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana-141001 through Sh.Jivtesh Kumar-Proprietor/the concerned authorized person.

2.M/s Bajaj Finance Limited, S.C.F.35-G, BRS Nagar, Opposite Police Station, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/the concerned authorized person.

3.M/s Bajaj Finance Limited, 4^th Floor, Survey # 208/1-B, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014 through its Managing Director/Chairperson/concerned authorized person.

4.M/s L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kashna Road, Greater Noida (U.P.)-201306 through its Director/Chairman/concerned authorized person.

…Opposite parties

 

   (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Sunil Kapoor, representative.

For Op1                         :        Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.S.S.Rai, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

 

                                                                                O R D E R

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.                          This complaint has been filed by Ms.Meenu Kapoor under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs, by alleging that Op1 has visited the complainant on 7.1.2013 and canvassed for the sale of a washing machine alongwith a free gift of Phillips Automatic Iron of Rs.900/-. Taking into consideration, the complainant agreed to buy it on installment-basis. Thereafter, OP1 has raised a demand for token money of Rs.7200/- which was paid in cash to Sh.Jivtesh Kumar, proprietor of OP1 on 7.1.2013, who issued acknowledgment of said token money in his hand on the back side of his visiting card. Thereafter, on 9.1.2013, a fully automatic washing machine manufactured by OP4, Model #WF-T8019PR has been bought with the remaining amount having been scattered over 8 installments with EMI of Rs.1625/- each per month which have duly been paid. Thereafter, OP1 had denied to supply the original bill/retail invoice with the plea that the same was required to be sent alongwith other relevant documents to OP2 being financer of the said machine which would be forwarded to OP3. However, a false assurance was given by OP1 that the said promised free gift would be given in a couple of days since it was not available with him at that time. Fact remains, the said gift has never been given to the complainant till date. Despite repeated approaches with OP1, a carbon copy of bill/retail invoice #7357 dated 9.1.2013 for Rs.19,500/- qua the said machine has been supplied to the complainant only after the NOC qua the machine has been provided to the OP1 after completion of the said EMI’s. In this way, an excess amount of Rs.700/- has been charged by OP1. Hence, by filing the present complaint, complainant has made prayer for the following reliefs:-

i)Op1 to OP3 be directed to supply the original bill/retail invoice qua the above-mentioned washing machine.

ii)OP4 be directed to take appropriate action on other Ops as per law in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above.

iii)Promised free-gift ‘Phillips Automatic Iron’ or Rs.900/- as stated above.

iv)Refund of Rs.700/- charged in excess alongwith interest @24% p.a. till its realization.

v)Rs.50,000/- compensation and litigation expenses

vi)Rs.40,000/- for Consumer Welfare Fund

Alongwith other alternative relief which deemed to be fit to the complainant.

2.                Upon notices, which the Ops were duly served, who appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies.

3.                OP1 filed the written reply, in which, it has been alleged that it was the complainant who approached the shop of answering OP for purchasing washing machine. However, it is denied that gift of Phillips Automatic Iron of Rs.900/- was promised as alleged by the complainant. No such assurance was given by the answering OP. The machine was to be got financed by the complainant from OP2 and OP3, to whom, the complainant had paid Rs.7200/- and remaining amount was to be paid in installment to them. It is admitted to the extent that the machine was supplied to the complainant and the complainant was to pay the remaining amount in installments. It is denied that the answering OP obtained signatures of complainant on unfilled paper. The original bill was sent to OP2 and OP3 and carbon copy of the bill was taken by the complainant. No excess amount of Rs.700/- was ever charged by the answering OP. The answering OP has unnecessarily been impleaded in this case. It is denied that the answering OP is guilty of evasion of VAT to the Government. The copy of bill is still in possession of complainant. No legal right of complainant has been denied by the answering OP. The answering OP has not adopted unfair trade practice, rather he is very much fair with all his customers. At the end, prayer made for dismissal of complaint with costs against the answering OP.

4.                OP2 and OP3 filed their separate written reply, in which, it has been submitted that the fact regarding excess collection of Rs.700/-,pertains to the transaction  between  OP1  and  the complainant and the matter may be taken up with OP1 only. Further, it is submitted that the Op1 being the dealer of electronic items having dealership of LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP4, for which, answering OPs are not at all concerned. It is submitted that answering Ops incorporated under provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of Financing/Lending only. It is submitted that complainant had entered into a Loan Proposal No.4260CD00095743 on 15.01.2013 and availed finance/loan of Rs.19,500/- for the purchase of LG-Washing Machine and the monthly installments was to be paid per month i.e.Rs.1625/-. The contract period was of 12 months and rate of interest was 00.00% p.a. The complainant towards payment of loan installments dues had issued ECS Mandate. Details of loan disbursement are as follow:-

Loan Amount	19,500	Remark
Advance EMI (EMI Rs.1625 *4)	6500
Net Disbursement	13,000	This amount to be paid in 8 EMIs of Rs.1625/- each.

 

Further, it is submitted that it is the dispute between OP1 and complainant and hence, matter may be taken up with OP1 only. The relation between answering Ops and OP1 and OP4 is of Principal to Principal basis. The answering Ops are not an agent of OP1 or OP4. Rather, answering Ops being financier are not at all responsible or liable for vicarious liability i.e. for any delay in delivery or non-delivery of the product and or with respect to the free gift, quality, condition , fitness and suitability or otherwise of the product.

5.                In the written reply filed by OP4, it has been alleged in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The answering OP has been unnecessarily made as party to the present complaint. No cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OP. The complainant has not sought the permission of this Hon’ble Forum u/s 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before instituting the present complaint against the answering OP. The present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations as the complainant has not alleged any allegations against the answering OP because as per facts pleaded by the complainant, the entire allegations are against OP1 to OP3.

6.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, Sh.Sunil Kapoor, representative for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA of Ms. Meenu Kapoor and his affidavit Ex.CB, in which, they have reiterated all the contents of the complaint and further, he has placed on record documents Ex.C1(A) and Ex.C1(B) photocopies of visiting card issued by OP1, Ex.C2 photocopy of the bill issued by OP1 qua the purchase of the washing machine, Ex.C3 photocopy of No Objection Certificate issued by OP1, Ex.C4 copy of letter dated 8.10.2014 sent by the complainant to Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Patiala qua sending intimation qua purchase of the washing machine in question, Ex.C5 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C6(A) and Ex.C6(B) photocopy of envelop and postal receipt, Ex.C7 copy of certificate issued by the Postal Authority regarding delivery of letter dated 8.10.2014, Ex.C8 to Ex.C10 and Ex.C12 copies of emails, Ex.C11 photocopy of bill dated 9.1.2013 issued by OP1, Ex.C13 copy of statement of account.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Jivetesh Kumar, Proprietor of OP1, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Op1. Similarly, OP2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Ms.Shivani Garg, its Assistant Manager Legal Collection, in which, she has deposed interms of the written reply filed by the OP2 and OP3 and rebutted the contents of the complainant. Further, she has proved on record documents Annexure-A copy of Loan Application Form, Annexure-B copy of agreement, Annexure-D  copy of Retail Invoice No.7357 dated 9.1.2013 issued by OP1 qua the purchase of the washing machine in question on payment of Rs.19,500/- and Annexure-D copy of Account Statement from 15.01.2013 to 16.02.2015. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP4 adduced evidence by tendering affidavit Ex.R4/A of Sh.Sucha Singh Dhillon, its Manager, in which, he has deposed interms of the written reply filed by the OP4 and further, refuted the case of the complainant.

8.                Written arguments on behalf of complainant submitted, but those are not submitted by the Ops.  Oral arguments of Ops were heard and records gone through minutely.  

 9.                         It is evident that the complainant had purchased the washing machine in question from OP1 vide retail invoice No.7357 dated 9.1.2013 Ex.C2(Ex.C11 and Annexure-C) and it is admitted by Op1 that amount of Rs.7200/- was paid by the complainant as token money on 7.1.2013 and the OP2 and OP3 made payment of Rs.13,000/- which was availed as loan by the complainant from them, meaning thereby that total amount paid by the complainant to OP1 i.e. Rs.7200/- + Rs.13,000/- = Rs.20,200/-. Further, it is evident that OP1 had received the amount of Rs.20,200/-, whereas, issued the bill Ex.C2 only for Rs.19,500/-. In this way, OP1 has received the excess amount of Rs.700/-, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP1. However, regarding the gift, there is no evidence in this regard.

10.     Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against OP1 only and as such, we direct the Op1 to refund Rs.700/- to the complainant i.e. charging of excess amount. Further, Op1 is directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Sat Paul Garg)                                 (G.K.Dhir)  

Member                                            President

Announced in open Forum

on 12.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma