BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.287 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 23.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 22.02.2023

Gurinder Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Kewal Singh R/o BX-1227, Lamma Pind, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Rai Enterprises, Jawala Petroleum, G. T. Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Manit Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Anuj Mehta, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant approached the OP who is the authorized dealer of various consumer durable goods including Panasonic. The complainant after going through the products displayed in the showroom of the OP decided to purchase Panasonic 1.5 Ton A. C. vide model No.TUIKYKY. The OP gave an estimate of the product vide estimate no.1373 dated 14.06.2019 mentioning the details of the products and price to be charged. The complainant after agreeing the price given by the OP vide above mentioned estimate purchased a Panasonic 1.5 ton air conditioner vide model no.TUI8VKY for Rs.39,500/- vide bill no.RE/19- 20/2885 dated 15.06.2019 from the OP. The complainant made the payment through his HDFC Bank Credit Card against the above mentioned bill. The OP instead of deducting/swapping bill amount of Rs.39500/-, swapped/deducted Rs.40,290/- from his credit card. The complainant objected to the OP of the overcharged amount made by him. But instead of accepting the mistake done by the OP, the OP started arguing that they have right to charge 2% extra if any one makes the payment through credit card. The complainant requested the OP that the deduction of overcharged amount is illegal, but they refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. As such, the OP is involved in unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to return the overcharged amount of Rs.790/- deducted from the bill amount by the OP alongwith interest with immediate effect. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP. It is further averred that the complainant is not the consumer as provided under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct, waiver and latches from filing the present complaint. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and suppressed the true and correct facts from this Commission. In fact, the complainant purchased the article/A.C. worth Rs.39,500/- from the OP through his HDFC Bank Credit Card. But the OP received a payment of Rs.38,982.58/- only against the same from his bank. The complainant purchased the said articles through his HDFC Bank credit card on installments and he also received cash back of Rs.3000/- regarding the said transaction. Hence, he also availed the said benefits of the credit card which he intentionally not disclosed in the present complaint. It is worth to mention here that the whole transaction has been done by the complainant himself through his own credit card after accepting all the terms and conditions and accepted the said payment and availed all the benefits. On the other hand, the OP has not even received the complete amount of the articles/A.C. from the bank of the complainant. Now just to harass and extract money from the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint with his ulterior motive. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party. The complainant did the transaction of purchasing through his own HDFC Bank Credit Card and an extra charge has been taken by the said bank/agency and not by the opposite party as alleged. As such, without being impleading the said bank/agency as party, the present complainant is liable to be dismissed only on this ground. It is further averred that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP and as such, the complainant has got no right to file the present complaint against the OP. The matter in dispute is complicated and required full length of evidence and their cross examination which does not falls within the ambit of this Commission. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the AC by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that he has purchased 1.5 ton AC from the OP on 14.06.2019, vide estimate invoice Ex.C-1. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the complainant has purchased the 1.5 ton AC of Panasonic for Rs.39,500/- and tax invoice has been proved as Ex.C-2 showing that the total amount of Rs.39,500/- was to be paid by the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he made the payment through his HDFC credit card and the OP deducted Rs.40,290/- from his credit card instead of Rs.39,500/-, which is evident from Ex.C-3 and now the complainant has claimed that the OP has deducted Rs.790/- extra from the complainant and this is deficiency in service as the OP has alleged that they have right to charge 2% extra, if the payment is made by way of credit card.

7.                The OP has alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs nor there is any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant, who himself has made less payment to the OP. As per the bank statement, the amount of Rs.38,982/- has been paid out of Rs.39,500/-. It is the OP who is to take the balance amount from the complainant. He has further referred Ex.C-3 and submitted that the EMI has been deducted by the bank only, therefore the complainant has filed false complaint. It has further been alleged that the bank has not been made party, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.                It is admitted and proved that the complainant purchased AC for Rs.39,500/-. Ex.C-3, which is the receipt of the bank, shows that the complainant has paid Rs.40,290/- and the EMI amount of Rs.3722/- has been mentioned in Ex.C-3 and total amount with interest has been mentioned as Rs.41,166/-. The cashback of Rs.3000/- has also been allowed to the complainant as per Ex.C-3. Ex.O1 shows that on 14 June, 2019, on which date this amount was allegedly paid to the OP, Rs.38,982.58/-, were paid through the bank to the OP. Rs.1107.98 were deducted under the head PYMT..COMM and Rs.199.44 have been deducted as PYMT-GST and net amount made is Rs.38982.58 against the payment due of Rs.39500/-. So, the complainant has failed to prove that Rs.790/- were charged in excess from the complainant by the OP rather the OP has proved that the complainant has made less payment to the OP. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

22.02.2023         Member                          Member           President