Date of filing:      04.10.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 21.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.40/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

(CC.No.01/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr. D.Srinivasan, S/o.Deenadayalan,

No.160/2, Thulasingam Street,

Perambur, Chennai -600 011.                                                            ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.M/s.Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited,

    Rep. by its Senior Manager,

   Old No.76, New No.131/4,

   Madhavaram High Road,

   Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

 

2.M/s.Capital Finance Limited (Finance),

    No.455, Ammara Sri Buildings III Floor,

    Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 18.                                   .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                 :   M/s.K.Srinivasan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                        : Exparte.

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party                       :   Mr.S.K.Mariyappan, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.01/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.40/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.K.Srinivasan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in the loan obtained by the complainant in the purchase of the mobile phone along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to cancel the loan agreement and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased a Redmi Note 54 Pro, from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.15,499/- on 08.07.2018 and had paid an initial amount of Rs.5,400/-and the balance Rs.10,600/- as finance from the 2nd opposite party and additional sum of Rs.1,000/- as interest totally Rs.11,600/- by way of EMIs for 6 months period.  The 1st opposite party failed to give invoice on 08.07.2018 due to some technical problems in printer, very next day the complainant collected invoice from the 1st opposite party for Redmi Note 5 Pro Mobile for a sum of Rs.15,499/- and the complainant started to use the above said mobile phone.  But the complainant was shocked to receive a message from 2nd opposite party stating that the complainant had purchased Samsung Black G965, S9 + mobile for a sum of Rs.66,149/- vide loan No.16116255.  Complainant immediately approached the 1st opposite party regarding the message received by him and it was found that the transactions had been fraudulently misused instead of actual purchase.  The complainant immediately approached 2nd opposite party regarding message and 2nd opposite party replied that they have sanctioned the loan only for Samsung mobile S9+amount for Rs.66,149/- and not for Rs.15,499/-.  The complainant was no way liable to pay the loan for the mobile Rs.66,149/- and the complainant also had given stop payment letter to his banker in respect of the cheque given to 2nd opposite party for security purpose. The complainant sent two lawyer notices which was also received by the opposite parties but they did not give any proper reply to the complainant.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to cancel the loan agreement and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

The 1st opposite party did not appear inspite of sufficient notices and hence called absent and set exparte on 28.03.2019.

Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-

The 2nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that M/s. Capital First Finance Limited has amalgamated with M/s. IDFC Bank Limited as per the NCLT order dated 13.12.2018 and named as M/s. IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED.  The complainant and 1st opposite party approached the 2nd opposite party for the purchase of Samsung G9 + for a total sum of Rs.66,149/- and the same was sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party vide a sanction letter dated 09.07.2018.  The 2nd opposite party had sanctioned the loan only after receiving proper request and documents from them. The copy of the receipt for the purchase of the said mobile by the complainant was proof of the same.  Further the complainant had not issued any letter or request to the 2nd opposite party for cancelling the loan and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A8. The 1st opposite party remind exparte and the 2nd opposite party though filed written version did not appear thereafter inspite of sufficient notice and did not file any proof affidavit and hence evidence on the side of the 2nd opposite party has been closed on 26.09.2022. No Written and oral arguments made by 2nd opposite party.

Points for consideration:

Whether the alleged discrepancy on the part of the opposite parties in the loan obtained by the complainant in the purchase of the mobile phone from the 1st opposite party and financed by the 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1;-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Invoice bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 09.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Loan ID with Loan Details Issued by the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;

Mobile view and circular dated 02.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;

 Police complaint against the 1st opposite party dated 04.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;

C.S.R. copy was marked as Ex.A5;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 07.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 20.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

Aadhar Card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A8;

The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that he had purchased a Redmi Note 54 Pro from the 1st opposite party on 08.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.15,499/-.  Rs.5400/- was paid as initial amount and the balance amount was arranged through finance from the 2nd opposite party.  The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.1933/- per month.  The next day of purchase the invoice was given to the complainant.  In such circumstances the complainant received a message that he had purchased an Samsung Black G965, S9+Mobile for a sum of Rs.66,149/- though loan account No.16116255. When he immediately approached the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party the complainant found that by using his name a loan transaction has been fraudulently generated.  As the act was fraudulently done by the 1st  and 2nd opposite parties colluding with each other, the complainant was no way responsible for repayment of the amount of Rs.66,149/-.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.

The 2nd opposite party though filed written version disputing the complaint allegations that the complainant obtained loan only for the purchase of  Samsung Black G965, S9+Mobile for a sum of Rs.66,149/- and not for Redmi Note 54 Pro for a sum of Rs.15,499/- no documents was produced in proof of the same.  It is seen that as per the invoice produced by the complainant Ex.A1 the opposite party had sold only Redmi Note 54 Pro at a cost of Rs.15,499/-.  Vide Ex.A2 it is seen that the loan amount was for Rs.66,149/- towards purchase of Samsung Black G965, S9+Mobile from the 1st opposite party and the EMI was mentioned as Rs.5513/-.  Further the intimation given for deduction of EMI amount from the complainant’s account was marked as Ex.A3.  The police complaint and the CSR copy issued by the police were submitted as Ex.A4 & Ex.A5.  in such circumstances it is amply proved that though in the invoice the mobile purchased by the complainant was given as Redmi Note 54 Pro at a cost of Rs.15,499/-the loan finance availed vide Ex.A2 was seems to be for an amount of Rs.66,149/-.  Further the complainant was also made to pay the EMI only towards the loan of Rs.66,149/- and not for Rs.15,499/-.  Thus it is apparently seen that the loan Account has been generated fraudulently in the name of complainant by the opposite parties.  In the facts and circumstances we of the view that the complainant has successfully proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus the point is answered in positive in favour of the complainant and as against both opposite parties 1 &2.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the opposite parties had fraudulently created a loan in the name of complainant we direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to cancel the loan agreement dated 10.07.2018 vide account No.16116255 and to issue a proper loan account for a sum of Rs.11,600/-.  If the opposite parties not ready to alter the loan agreement they are directed to refund a sum of Rs.5400/- to the complainant on returning the mobile to the 1st opposite party.  We award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by both opposite parties for the clear deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties which caused huge mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  We also award Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severely directed 

a) to cancel the loan agreement dated 10.07.2018 in account No.16116255 and to issue a fresh loan account for a sum of Rs.11,600/- to be repaid within six monthly installments or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.5,400/- to the complainant on returning the phone and to issue No Due Certificate within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21st day of November 2022.

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 09.07.2018 Bill issued by the 1st opposite party for the purchase of mobile. Xerox

Ex.A2 .............. Loan I.D.with Loan details issued by the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 02.08.2018 Mobile view and circular. Xerox

Ex.A4 04.08.2018 Police Complaint against the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 11.08.2018 C.S.R. copy. Xerox

Ex.A6 07.08.2018 Legal notice Xerox

Ex.A7 20.08.2018 Legal notice. Xerox

Ex.A8 ............... Aadhar Card of the complainant. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-

 Nil

 

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT