Date of Filing:17/11/2014

  Date of Order:19/10/2016

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and prays for direction to the O.P. No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,950/-  towards excess overdue amount collected fraudulently along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and further pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the O.P. No.1 is a non-banking finance company registered with Reserve Bank of India having its corporate office and also having its registered office at Pune, Maharastra.  The O.p.No.1 is presently in the business of providing different types of loans which includes Consumer Durable loans, personal loans, two wheeler loans, loan against property, loan against shares etc., to its various customers. O.P.No.2 is consumer durable retailer showroom.  On 1.3.2012 the complainant purchased “Electrolux” refrigerator from M/s Girias Investment (P) Ltd., Bangalore for a sum of Rs.10,740/-. Out of the said sum the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as down payment to O.P.No.2 and for the balance amount of Rs.7,740/- availed a loan from O.P.No.1.  The terms of repayment was that the complainant will repay on Equal Monthly Installments @ Rs.1074/- per month for a period of 8 months commencing from the month of May 2012.  The complainant started paying the monthly EMI’S by way of cash which was collected by O.P.No.1 and receipt for payment was issued for the said sum. As per the terms of repayment the complainant was paid the entire 8 months EMI and the last EMI was paid on 6^th December 2012.  In view of the said loan amount was paid fully and cleared by the complainant, the O.P.No.1 has to issue No objection certificate for clearing the loan amount and to close the loan account.  Whereas to the utter surprise of the complainant that, the O.p.No.1 started harassing by making telephone calls and demanded to pay the overdue amount of Rs.3,950/- fraudulently charged by the O.P.No.1.

3.     The complainant further submits that, the O.P.No.1 personnel telephoned the complainant and threatened him regarding issuance of by non-bailable warrant  from Mumbai Police and if the overdue amount is not paid to the company of O.P.No.1. Therefore, the complainant visited the office of O.P.No.1 on 22.8.2014 for enquiring about the same and O.P.No.1 neither responded properly nor furnished details explaining the same. The complainant at that point of time was forced by O.P.No.1 personnel to pay the amount of Rs.3,950/- with the threat of arrest and the complainant under pressure was forced to pay a sum of Rs.3,950/- on 22.8.2014 with receipt No.31348561 as “Bounce charges”, though the complainant had not issued any kind of cheque to O.P.No.1 for availing the said loan. On repeated demand made by the complainant to compensate the said sum but O.p.No.1 is not honouring the claim. The complainant left with no other alternative issued a legal notice dated 23.9.2014 to the O.P.No.1, inspite of service of notice O.P.No.1 neither contacted the complainant nor issued any reply to the said legal notice.  Hence alleged that O.P.No.1 committed deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

4.      Upon issuance of notice, O.P No.1 and 2  neither appeared nor contested the case and consequently O.Ps are  placed exparte.

5.     To substantiate the above case, the complainant has filed the affidavit evidence along with documents.  We have heard the arguments.

6.     On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-

 (A) Whether the complainant has proved

                      deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

(B)    Whether the complainant is entitled to        

       the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)    What order?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) & (B) :  In the affirmative.

POINT (C):  As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT  No (A):-

8.     On perusal of the averments made in the  complaint along with the documents it reveals that the complainant purchased the Refrigerator from O.P.No.2 by availing loan from O.P.No.1. On perusal of the copy of the receipt as per Doc. No.1 it discloses that, as per the bill amount complainant purchased the said refrigerator for Rs.10.7 40/- and also the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- towards down payment and for the balance amount complainant availed the loan from O.P.No.1. Further on perusal of Doc.No.2 to Doc.No.9 and these documents disclose that the complainant paid the monthly EMI’s at the rate of Rs.1,074/- per month. 

9.     It is the specific allegation of the complainant though he has paid entire EMI’s and cleared the loan but the O.P.No.1 instead of issuing No Due Certificate forcefully by threatening the complainant collected excess amount of Rs.3,950/- as bouncing charges. 

10.   It is worth to submit that, the complainant clearly stated in his complaint and also in his evidence that he has not issue any cheque but the O.Ps fraudulently collected the bouncing charges of Rs.3,950/- without any cause and hence alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

11.   It is pertinent to note that, inspite of due service of notice on the O.Ps but for the reasons best known to them but they have not appeared before the Forum to answer the claim of the complainant.  On the basis of available evidence on record there is no occasion warranted to disbelieve the  case of the complainant.  It is worth to note that, the complainant purchased t he refrigerator for Rs.10,740/ and made payment of Rs.3,000/- towards down payment and availed the loan for Rs.7,740/- and paid all the  EMI’s including the interest.  It is unfortunate to note that the O.Ps without issuing the no due certificate collected unjustly an amount of Rs.3,950/- from the complainant without any valid reasons and the act of O.Ps is highly deplorable one and also amounts to not only deficiency in service it is clear case of unfair trade practice too.

12.   The law mandates that no man should be enriched unjustly at the cost of others.  Under the circumstances, the O.Ps are jointly and severally to pay back Rs.3,950/- along with interest 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization and also directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and it will meet the ends of justice. In the light of above discussion, we accordingly answered the Point No.(A) & (B)  in the affirmative.

POINT No.(C)

13.   On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) & (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
2. The O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,950/- along with interest 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization to the complainant.
3. Further O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
4. The O.Ps are hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19^th Day of October 2016)

MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

*Rak