1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 15.10.2018 he purchased one LG refrigerator from O.P. No. 1 vide bill no. 1409 for Rs. 43,080/- which includes Rs. 39,000/- towards costs of the product and Rs. 4,080/- towards for one year extended warranty, under finance from the O.P. No. 3 and the EMI of Rs. 3590/- was deducting from his saving account having with the O.P. No. 2.  It is alleged that though he had deposited an amount of Rs. 14,360/- as advance EMIs for four months and also deposited five installments for consecutive months and also he has deposited Rs. 450/- with the O.P. No. 3 towards extra charges but the O.Ps have illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 295/- for five times without any fault, thus showing deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case claiming refund of Rs. 1475/- and Rs. 450/- towards illegal deduction and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Commission, but did not appear in this case nor filed his counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting the finance amount of complainant was debiting through his saving bank account having with them vide no. 30850866749, but denied the other allegations contending that the entire transaction of the subject matter was made out between the complainant, O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 and the O.P. No. 3 was forwarding a ECS mandate signed by the complainant while availing the finance from the O.P. No. 3 in which they have no role to play.  Further contended that as per mandate instruction the specific date was 2^nd of every month and the EMI of Rs. 3590/- was deducted from the account of complainant having with them and due to non availability of minimum balance in his account and standing instruction of ECS if fails, an amount of Rs. 295/- (Rs. 250/- towards charges and Rs. 45/- towards GST) was deducted on each time.  Thus showing their no liability with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.        

4. The O.P. No. 3 though received the notice from the Commission, but did not appear in this case nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of ample opportunities given to them, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against the O.P. No. 3 remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.   

5. Complainant and A/R for O.P. No. 2 filed their respective documents in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties present.  Perused the record and materials available therein.

6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the alleged product from the O.P. No.1 under finance from O.P. No. 3 and the EMI was deducted from his account having with the O.P. No. 2.  The allegation of complainant on many occasions the O.P. No. 2 deducted an amount of Rs. 295/- from his account and in total an amount of Rs. 1475 was deducted from his account, which is not justified.  Whereas the contention of O.P. No. 2 is that the due to non maintainance of minimum balance in his account on the ECS command date i.e. 2^nd of every month and as per standing instruction for EMI deduction through ECS, if failure, than service charges of Rs. 250/-including GST total mounting Rs. 295/- was deducted  by the system for each standing instructions. 
   
   In this connection, we have gone through the documents filed by the parties and ascertained that the standing instruction for deduction of EMI through ECS mode was fixed on 2^nd of every month, whereas on many occasions, the O.P. No. 3 has presented the standing instructions for deduction of payment prior to the fixed date i.e. 2^nd of every month and due to non availability of balance for EMI the standing instructions was got failure and the alleged charges were deducted.
   
   Further ascertained that the complainant has maintained the minimum balance in his saving account on each month only for deduction the EMI, whereas the O.P. No. 3 has presented the standing instructions to the O.P. No. 2 for deduction of EMI prior to the fixing date, which, as per our view is not justified. It is also ascertained from the statement filed by the both parties that on many occasions, the O.P.No. 3 has presented the standing instructions in the last days of month i.e. 30^th day of month for which the alleged charges were deducted from the account of complainant, which is also not justified as per our view.We feel, the act of O.P. No. 3 is not as per standing instruction give by the complainant to them and not following the standing instructions, the O.P. No. 3 has proved deficiency in service on their part.
   
   Further the O.P. No. 3 is absent throughout the proceeding, as such lost opportunities to come to know that whether they have received further amount of Rs. 450/- from the complainant as extra charges, whereas complainant vehemently argued that the O.P. No. 3 has taken extra charges of Rs. 450/- from him which is not justified.Since no contradiction was brought out, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of complainant. In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

7. Considering the above discussion, we feel the act of O.P. No. 3 is not as per the law, hence being harassed mentally and financially, complainant was compelled to seek redress before the Commission.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                          ORDER

          The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 3 is directed to refund the illegal deduction of Rs. 1475/- and Rs. 450/- in total Rs. 1925/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from 03.01.2019 till the payment made alongwith Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and financially loss and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

          No specific allegations made against the O.P. No. 1 & 2, hence no order against them.

           Pronounced the order in the open Court on this the 24^th day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.