Haryana

Ambala

CC/144/2020

Sagar Ram Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saugat Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :     144 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     05.08.2020

                                                          Date of decision     :     15.06.2022.

         

Sagar Ram Dhiman son of Jyoti Ram Dhiman, Resident of House No.1553, Housing Board Colony, Sector-10, Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Saugat Electronics, Shop No.105-106, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. Haryana, through its Prop.

2.       Capital First Limited (Now IDFC First Bank Limited), Regd. Office: KRM Tower, 7^th Floor, No.1 Harrington Road Chetpet, Chennai-600031, Tamilnadu, India, through its M.D.

3.       ONIDA Electronics Limited, Regd. Office-MICR Electronics Limited, Onida House, G-1 MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093, India, through its M.D.

 

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

None for OP No.1.

Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

OP No.3 already ex-parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.52,703/-, (The amount paid by the complainant to OP No.2 and SBI Bank Ambala City) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the AC, till its realisation.
2. To pay Rs.60,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

                                   

2.                Brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2018,complainant purchased ONIDA SPLIT Air Conditioner 1.5 Ton Model SR 183 WAV with Dust Cover, AC Stand, Free Delivery, for Rs.32,000/-, from the OP No.1. Complainant purchased the said AC after obtaining the loan from Finance Company (Customer ID 17189304) i.e OP No.2, payable in seven equal monthly instalments. On 16.08.2018, in the evening, the OP No.1, delivered an old, Unsealed AC and without accessories i.e. Dust Cover, AC stand. OP No.1 did not provide him the bill of the above said AC. On 17.08.2018, complainant lodged a complaint with the OP No.1, to replace the AC with the new one and to provide the original bill of the AC but it did nothing. On 23.08.2018, complainant lodged an online complaint with the OP No.2, whereby requested it not to release the payment to the OP No.1, till it replace the AC. The OP NO.2 instead of doing the needful, had threatened the complainant for payment of the loan amount. On 28.12.2018, complainant lodged a complaint against the OPs No.1 and 2, with the police and on 11.06.2019, sent a reminder, but no action was taken by the police. Thereafter on 15.11.2019, he filed a complaint against the OPs No.1 and 2, in the CM window, but it was a futile exercise.  Complainant under the fear and pressure of the OP No.2, made the payment of Rs.32,000/-, i.e the cost of the AC and Rs.20703.80 paise as penalty, to the OP No.2. The aforesaid act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version, stating therein that the OP No.1 has already stated that if the complainant is not satisfied with the product it will replace the same, with the new one, but complainant did not approach it for replacement of the AC in question and prayed that complaint filed by the complainant against it may be dismissed.        

4.                Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and not come with clean hands etc.  On merits, it is stated that complainant had availed loan from the company and signed the agreement after understanding all the terms and conditions of the agreement. Loan was given to the complainant to be repaid in equated monthly installments. But the complainant did not turn out to be a good borrower; he committed regular and intention default and did never obey his commitment of timely payments. It is further stated that complainant never lodged a complaint with it for non-release of the loan amount to the OP No.1. As a matter of fact payment was already released at the time of purchase of the AC by the complainant. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint filed by the complainant against it with costs.

5.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.3 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2021.

6.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, proprietor for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure OP/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Manpreet POA, IDFC Bank, Julandhar as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                We have heard the complainant, learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

8.                 Complainant has submitted that on 16.08.2018, he purchased a new AC from the OP No.1 but it delivered an old and unsealed AC to him and also did not provide the bill. He requested the OP No.1, to replace the said AC with the new one and also provide the bill but it did nothing. He further submitted that he purchased the said AC, after availing loan from the OP No.2 and on 23.08.2018, he requested the OP No.2, not to release the payment to the OP No.1, until it replace the AC with the new one and provide the bill, inspite of that OP No.2 released the payment to the OP No.1. Complainant lodged a complaint against OPs No.1 and 2 with the police but no action was taken against them.

9.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has submitted that the loan amount was released to the OP No.1, at the time of purchase of the AC. OP No.2 never received any intimation from the complainant with regard to stoppage of payment to the OP No.1.  The complainant was to pay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Complainant has dragged the OP No.2 in an unwanted litigation.

10.              The OP No.1, in its written version has categorically stated that it is ready to replace the AC in question but complainant has not brought his AC for replacement to it. It is not the case of the complainant that he took the AC for replacement to the OP No.1, but it refused to replace the same. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the amount, as prayed for.

11.              So far as the complaint filed against OP No.2 is concerned. The plea of the OP No.2 is that it released the amount to the OP No.1, at the time of the purchase of the AC in question i.e. on 16.08.2018.  From the perusal of Email, Annexure C-2/A it is evident that complainant requested the OP No.2, not to release the amount to the OP No.1 on 23.08.2018, i.e. after the date when the OP No.2, had already released the amount to the OP No.1. Once, the OP No.2 had already sanctioned the loan and released the same to OP No.1, then complainant has to repay the same as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.2, is liable to be dismissed. Even the complaint filed by the complainant against the manufacturer i.e OP No.3 is also liable to be dismissed because it is not the case of the complainant that the AC in question is having any inherent manufacturing defect.

12.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.2 and 3 and dispose of the same against the OP No.1 and direct it to replace the AC in question and also provide the bill to the complainant, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Complainant is also directed to hand over the AC in question to OP No.1. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 15.06.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

None for the OP No.1.

Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

OP No.3 already ex-parte.

 

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed against OPs No.2 and 3 and same has been disposed of against OP No.1. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on:15.06.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President