- After the registration of the complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite parties and in response to the notices, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have appeared through their respective counsels and opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties as framed or at all and is not maintainable both in facts and law. That the complainant had taken loan from opposite parties and as such the relationship between complainant and opposite parties is that of the debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider and hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. That the complainant has filed this complaint just to avoid her legal liability and to earn easy money by taking the shelter and sympathy of the Hon’ble Commission by suppressing the material true facts. That the complaint is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiesces.
It is further submitted by the opposite parties that on 28.12.2018 the complainant has purchased DLSR Camera from opposite party No.1 dealer by availing financial assistance of Rs.45,000/- from opposite parties vide account No.5080CD99095572 (CD loan) and agreed to pay 12 regular equated monthly installments of Rs.3,750/- and the complainant paid 4 EMIs in advance totalling Rs.15,000/- (Rs.3750 x 4) and agreed to pay the remaining EMIs w.e.f. 02.02.2019.On 12.04.2019 the complainant herself has given his consent to convert the CD loan into PL loan wherein by clicking on the link sent in the registered contact No.9916899969 and accepting the offer of converting the CD loan to personal loan account No.508SFPEG045490 for Rs.18,750/- which is payable with interest at 10.55% vide EMI of Rs.2,040/- and the same is evident from the history of the events done by the complainant in the portal of customer experia, the complainant was aware about the conversion of CD loan to PL loan and the complainant has herself accepted the offer which was sent via SMS on her registered mobile No.9916899969 on 12.04.2019 at 3.22.5 PM and the said offer was accepted by the complainant on the very same day at 10.19.42 PM.
It is further alleged that the said PL loan account NO.508SFPEG0454901 stands cancelled as on date in the records.EMI of Rs.2,040/- was deducted from the account of the complainant on 02.05.2019 and the same was refunded back to the complainant on 15.05.2019 vide UTR No.CMS 1126734630.The said loan was cancelled in the records only after the complainant has raised the request for the cancellation of the backend team.That after the opposite parties received the request of cancellation, the same was cancelled and loan was rebooked vide LAN NO.5080CDEJ827117 on 14.05.2019 for the same amount of Rs.45,000/- with a monthly EMI of Rs.3,750/-, the complainant paid 3 EMIs on time accepted the offer of conversion.Accordingly, the CD loan was foreclosed by paying Rs.18,750/- and the new PL was booked for Rs.18,750/- with ROI 10.55% which as on date stands cancelled and closed.EMI of Rs.2,040/- which was collected has also been refunded back to the complainant and the new loan has been booked.The opposite parties has adjusted the sum of Rs.26,250/- 7 EMIs @ Rs.3,750/- which has been paid by the complainant towards LAN No.5080CD99095572 and she has to pay the balance EMI at Rs.3,750/- for remaining period.The complainant ahs paid Rs.3,750/- on 05.06.2019.That there has been no deficiency in service committed on the part of opposite parties and the complainant himself has mislead the Hon’ble Commission by suppressing the correct and material facts and accordingly opposite parties cannot be held liable.Hence, the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed with direction to pay the outstanding loan amount i.e. bouncing charges and late payment charges..
- The complainant has filed her affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the other hand, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 also filed their affidavit towards examination in chief and same was taken as R.W.1. and R.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
- Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials placed on record.
- The points that would arise for our consideration are as here under:-
- Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby she is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following
:: R E A S O N S ::
- Point No.1:- To prove the truth of her case, the complainant has been examined herself as P.W.1 by filing her affidavit towards examination in chief and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The complainant has reiterated the averments of the complaint in the affidavit. Ex.P.1 is the bill cum loan taken by complainant. Ex.P.2 is the message sent by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to the complainant reducing the payment from Rs.3,750/- to Rs.2,040/-. Ex.P.3 regarding pre-close of old account. Ex.P.4 is the message issued by opposed parties. Ex.P.5 is also another SMS sent by opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Ex.P.6 is the digital EMI card. Ex.P.7 is the loan details. Ex.P.8 is the statement of account. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the police complaint. After the testimony of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has also filed its affidavit towards examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1 and OP Nos.2 and 3 have also filed their affidavit as R.W.2 and got produced two documents and the same are marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have reiterated the averments of the version in the said affidavit. Ex.R.1 is the special power of attorney and Ex.R.2 is the statement of account. After the evidence of both parties, both parties have vehemently argued the matter.
- After perusal of the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties, there is a question arose about the alleged unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3. According to the complainant, she purchased DSLR for Rs.48,670/- from opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.19,083/- as down payment and for remaining Rs.29,587/- she took loan from opposite party Nos.2 and 3 for 8 months i.e. Rs.3,750/- x 8 = Rs.30,000/- and the complainant has already paid 3 EMIs for the month of February, March and April 2019, the said allegations of the complainant is not admitted by the opposite parties in their version as pleading of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is different from that of the complainant. But, it is the further allegations of the complainant that she received a message from opposite party Nos.2 and 3 that EMI is reduced by 45% from Rs.3,750/- to Rs.2,040/- as the complainant clicked on the link virtual chart started and the complainant did not had any option to type/discuss for its reduce. After some times, the complainant received a message mentioning that the old loan account is closed and the new loan account is created for Rs.2,040 x 10 = 20,400/. Hence, the complainant sent the E-mail to opposite parties address and requested the opposite parties to restore the old loan account, but they are not ready and she filed a complaint before the police station and thereafter before this Commission. But, it is the contention of the opposite parties that after the said PL account was cancelled the opposite parties booked new CD loan account and adjusted the amount of 7 EMIs paid by the complainant and now the complainant has to clear the remaining EMI on due dates as per the initial agreed terms is cause evident from the bare perusal of the statement of account. Such pleadings are not believable as there is no document about the payment of Rs.3,750/- after sending SMS for Rs.2,040/-. After bare looking of Ex.R.2, it is mentioned in the Ex.R.2 about payment of Rs.3,750/- but, no where stated about the alleged deduction of Rs.2,040/-. Hence, it is also unbelievable. Moreover, opposite party No.1 has relied upon some decisions of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and other Commissions which are not helpful to the defence of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Viewed from the rival contentions of both parties, the complainant has proved her case against the opposite parties for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the complainant has to be compensated and the complainant has proved the alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 within the meaning of Section 2(47) of C.P.act, 2019. Hence, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
- Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following
:: ORDER ::
- The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.
- The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are hereby jointly and severally directed to continue with the old loan account and also refund the excess amount received if any from the second loan account from complainant within one month from the date of this order.
- The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are hereby jointly or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount of Rs.3,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.5,000/- will carry interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.
- The complainant is at liberty to take necessary action, under Section 72 of C.P.Act for non-compliance the order.
- Pending applications if any shall stand disposed off in terms of this final order.
- Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 28th September, 2022)
