Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., V/S Dattatreya Vinnu S/o Eshwarappa Vinnu - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/08/55

Dattatreya Vinnu S/o Eshwarappa Vinnu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

C.Kesava Rao

24 Mar 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/55

Dattatreya Vinnu S/o Eshwarappa Vinnu						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., shri ganesh appliances						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Dattatreya Vinnu S/o Eshwarappa Vinnu

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. C.Kesava Rao

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Sateesh V

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Sri. Datatreya Vinnu against two Opposite Parties-(1) Sri. Ram City Union Finance Ltd., (2) Sri. Ganesh Appliances Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant has purchased LG MY PC (Personal Computer) under Contract No. ISH1CDRCH3464/04 from OP.No-2 by making initial down payment of Rs. 10,894/- through cheque bearing No.BF1432354 of ING Vysya Bank. The said cheque was en-cashed by the OP.No-2 on 13-02-06. On the same day the OP.No-2 has also collected eight post dated monthly cheques bearing Nos. 1432356 to 1432362 and 1432355 respectively for a sum of Rs. 2,225/- each from the complainant, towards the balance price of the said computer purchased by him. The complainant always maintained sufficient balance of more than Rs. 2,225/- in his account throughout the said period in order to honour the cheques. The OP-1 was expected to present each post dated cheque in due date and to en-cash the same for the adjustment of dues. It is the further case of the complainant that the OP-1 issued a demand notice on 23-06-08 by claiming a sum of Rs. 5,432/- as a due without giving any detail statement of accounts justifying the said claim but rather threatened the complainant with initiation of civil and criminal proceedings against him along with threat of charging exorbitant rate of interest @ 30% p.a., in case the complainant failed to tender the said amount within (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The said demand is nothing but a black mailing tactics against the complaint. On receipt of the said notice the complainant had a mobile conversation with the authorized representative of Op.-1 by informing that complainant is not due to the OP.No-1 any amount as he always maintained sufficient balance in his bank account to enable the OP.No-1 to clear the dues cover under the (8) post dated cheques and dis-owned any liability of such amount demanded due to the OP.No-1. It is further contended that the OP.No-1 has got issued summons to the complainant through its Arbitrator Mr. M.V. Murthy by stating initiation of Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 against the complainant for recovery of Rs. 7,537/- and thereby asked him to appear before the said Arbitrator on 19-08-08 at Bangalore. Neither any plaint copy nor any documents justifying the due of such amount is sent along with the said notice to the complainant. The OP.No-1 by taking un-due advantage of the clause for Arbitration in the agreement got signed by the complainant at the time of sanction of loan/ finance facilities, got filed the said false Arbitration case by claiming Rs. 7,537/- although he is not at all legally bound to pay any amount. Therefore demand of such amount with the threat of penal consequences and corresponding act of the OP in filing a false and vexatious arbitration case at the far away place from Raichur without there being any cause of action is nothing but un-fair trade practice and constitute deficiency of service and also it is nothing but abuse of the provisions of law. The OP is in the habit of indiscriminate mis-use of the said clause in filing such false and vexatious case against the like minded persons of the complainant to get wrongful gain. Therefore the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest from the date of complaint till realization for the said complaint filed by the OP including the demand notice with threat of penal consequences issued by the OP.No-1. The complainant further contended that he is not at all liable to pay any dues to the OP.No-1 since the OP.No-2 collected the (8) post dated cheqeus from the complainant on behalf of the OP.No-1 for the due amount at Raichur. Therefore he is also jointly and severally liable for the said compensation for the unlawful demand. 2. In response to service of notice OP.No-1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels. OP. NO-1 has filed written version contending that this OP.No-1 has no knowledge whether the OP.No-2 en-cashed the down payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. BF 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank from whom the complaint purchased the said computer on 13-02-06 and the OP.No-2 collected (8) post dated monthly cheques from the complainant, whether the cheques were from the account of the complainant bearing No. 121011003528 and they commenced from 07-05-06 to 07-12-06 and bore cheque No. 1432356 to 1432362 and 1432355 respectively for a sum of Rs. 2,225/- each towards the balance price of the said computer, whether all these post dated cheques were collected by OP.No-2 from complainant on the same day the cheque for Rs. 10,894/- was received. Further contended that it is also not within the knowledge of this OP. whether the complainant always mentioned sufficient balance of more than Rs. 2,225/- in his account throughout the said period. The OP.No-1 further contended that he is into consumer durable finance which includes television, refrigerator, washing machines, computers etc., at 0% interest, as such the company is not at all liable for any proceedings, since the OP.No-1 have not collected any service charges from the complainant as such are exclusively excluded as per section 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act. The OP.No-1 works under M2C (Manufacturer 2 Consumer) concept of business, wherein this OP.No-1 finances the products purchased by the consumers through any of the chain of dealers ( Viz., OP.No-2) of the manufacturer at 0% interest plus zero service charges, the various manufacturers in order to promote their products bear the finance charges on behalf of the consumers. It is further contended that first notice sent by the Arbitrator has a express clause in the notice which clearly states as However if you have made payments immediately prior to receiving this notice or earlier, please furnish us the proof of payment to avoid further action, which may be taken against you what prevented the complainant to write to OP.No-1 and provide proof of his payments, this attitude of the complainant clearly depicts that he has slept over the notice. The complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous false and vexatious one. The OP.No-1 is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant since the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands but with an ulterior motive and to have financial gains by using the process of this Honble Forum and to harass the OP.No-1 which has been awarded/conferred by different business consortiums in consumer durable segments, for innovating an idea for providing free service to consumers across the country and getting within reach all those products that was a dream for many a people. Further the OP.No-1 prayed this Forum to reject the complaint of the complainant with heavy cost and also to compensate the OP.No-1 for having been dragged to this Forum without any cause and award the cost of the legal expenses. 3. The OP.No-2 has filed his written version contending that he is no way concerned to the alleged finance facility transactions in between the complainant and OP.No-1 therefore he is not at all liable to answer the claim of the complainant and he is not at all a necessary and proper party to the complaint. There is no previty of contract in between the complainant and OP.No-2 in respect of the grievances of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and even absolutely there is no allegations against the OP.No-2 in this regard. The OP.No-2 further contended that the complainant has not at all delivered the (8) post dated cheques to OP.No-2 in order to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the Honble Forum has made such false allegations. Further contended that the unnecessarily complainant has dragged the OP.No-2 to the litigation. The conduct of the complainant has put the OP.No-2 to harass and mental agony. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and he has got marked (4) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. In rebuttal the OP. NO-1 has filed sworn affidavit of Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Rudrappa, Authorized Signatory Sri Ram City Union Finance ltd., Bangalore, and he has got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. OP.NO-2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency in service by the OPs as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Affirmative against Op-1 & Negative against Op-2. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute regarding purchase of LGMYPC (personal computer) from OP-2 with the financial assistance by the OP-2 under contract No. ISHICDRCHO 3464/06 by making initial payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank Branch, Raichur. It is also not disputed that the remaining balance amount shall be paid by (8) installments at Rs. 2,225/-. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase of the said computer from the Op-2 he has submitted (8) post dated cheques bearing Nos. 1432356 to 1432362 & 1432355 for the remaining balance commencing from 07-05-06 to 07-12-06 and he had maintained sufficient fund in his account in order to honour the said post dated cheques. Further it is the case of the complainant that without giving the details of the statement of account justifying the dues in-respect of the balance, the OP-1 had issued a demand notice on 23-06-08 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,432/- and threatened him with initiation of civil & criminal proceedings along with threat of charging exorbitant rate of interest @ 30% p.a. in case, the complainant failed to tender said amount within (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice and the said demand is nothing but a blackmailing tactics against him. Further it is the case of the complainant that even in-spite of several mobile conversation with the Authorized Representatives of the Op-1 informing that the complainant is not due to the OP-1 any amount as he always maintained sufficient balance in his bank account to enable the OP-1 to clear the dues covered under the (8) post dated cheques and therefore the complainant dis-owned any liability of such amount of demand made by the OP-1. But even in-spite of his phone conversation the OP-1 had initiated the Arbitrary proceedings against him under Arbitration Case No. 51132/2008 for recovery of Rs. 7,537/- and has asked the complainant to approach before the said Arbitrator at Bangalore. On 19-08-08. This act of the Op-1 is nothing but a unfair trade practice and also constitute deficiency of service and abuse of the process of the law. Hence approached this Forum for appropriate relief. 8. The OP-1 has contended that he has no knowledge whether the OP-2 has encashed the down payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. BF 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank from whom the complainant purchased the computer on 13-02-06 and about the (8) post dated cheques which are alleged to be collected from the OP-2 by the complainant and also regarding sufficient funds maintained by the complainant in order to honour said (8) post dated cheques on their presentation. He has also contended that first notice sent by Arbitrator has express clause in the notice which clearly states as However if you have made payments immediately prior to receiving this notice or earlier please furnish us the proof of payment to avoid further action which may be taken against you. Even inspite of this notice the complainant has not replied and not provide of the proof of his payments. This attitude of the complainant clearly depicts that, he has slept over the matter. Further he has contended that the OP-1 is in to consumer durable finance at 0% interest and not collected any service charges from the complainant, as such exclusively excluded as per section 2(O) of the CP Act. Hence OP-1 is not at all liable for any compensation claimed by the complainant and prayed to reject the complaint with cost. 9. The OP.No-2 contended that he is in no way concerned to the alleged finance facility transactions in between the complainant and OP.No-1. There is no previty of contract in between the complainant and OP.No-2 in respect of the grievances of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and even absolutely there is no allegation against this OP.No-2 in this regard. The OP.No-2 further contended that the complainant has not at all delivered the (8) post dated cheques. Therefore the OP-2 sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost-. 10. The complainant has filed in all four documents namely: (1) Demand Notice dt. 23-06-08 issued by the OP-1 to the complainant, at ExP-1. Summons in Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 issued by Arbitrator Sri. M.V. Murthy to the complainant, at Ex.P-2. Statement of Account issued by ING Vysya Bank, Raichur Branch of the complainant from 01-02-06 to 28-02-07, at Ex.P-3 & Xerox copy of written statement filed in Arbitration Case. 51132/08, at Ex.P-4. Similarly the OP-1 has filed two documents namely: (1) Legal Notice issued in Contract No. ISHICDRCH05184/07, at Ex.R-1. and (2) Shriram City Union Finance Agreement Booklet is marked at Ex.R-2. 11. From the close perusal of the Ex.P-3 i.e, Statement of Account issued by ING Vysya Bank, Raichur Branch of the complainant from 01-02-06 to 28-02-07 it is clearly discloses that (8) cheques have been sent for collection by OP-1 and same have been debited in the complainants account. The details in this regard are as under:- Sl.No. Cheque No. Date of transaction Amount 1. BF1432356 08-06-07 2,225/- 2. BF1432357 14-06-07 2,225/- 3. BF1432358 29-07-06 2,225/- 4. BF1432359 06-10-06 2,225/- 5. BF1432360 06-10-06 2,225/- 6. BF1432362 21-11-06 2,225/- 7. BF1432361 23-11-06 2,225/- 8. BF1432355 22-12-06 2,225/- From these entries in Ex.P-3 it is crystal clear that the complainant has given (8) post dated cheques in order to clear off the remaining balance of the price of the computer purchased by him through OP-2. It is also clear that about possessing of the said (8) cheques by OP-1 and same have been presented by OP-1 itself and the (8) cheques amount in all Rs. 17,800/- has been withdrawn by the complainant, account in-respect of due. These entries also clearly goes to show that the entire installments amount has been received by Op-1 before the end of December 2006 as contended by the complainant. Though the complaint of the complainant and written version of Op 1 & 2 are not clear about the cost of the computer but from the pleadings of the parties and the entries found in Ex.P-3, it appears that the cost of the computer is in all Rs. 28,690/- out of which the complainant had paid 10,894/- in advance and Rs. 17,800/- has been paid in (8) installments. Thus we do not find any reason to believe that neither the complainant is due to the tune of Rs. 5,432/- as demanded by Op-1 through Ex.P-1 demand notice nor Rs. 7,537/- as per Ex.P-2. Arbitration summons issued under Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 by Arbitrator M.V. Murthy. It is worthwhile to note that the Op-1 himself has submitted all the (8) post dated cheques for collection and same have been honoured and credited to the account of OP-1 before the end of December 2007 but no where the Op-1 has stated about what was the loan advanced and what was the cost of the computer. But instead issued a notice for claiming the dues against the complainant and initiated Arbitration proceedings which itself would goes to show that the Op-1 is lacking with the fair approach in dealing the matter with the complainant. Hence we do not find any wrong about the contention of the complainant regarding the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the Op-1. It is further worthwhile to note that before verifying the accounts and details of repayment by the complainant OP-2, issued notice against the complainant for recovery of dues and initiated the proceedings under Arbitration Act against the complainant which will hold no justice on the part of the OP. However the complainant after receiving the Arbitration proceedings under Ex.P-2 approached and filed his written version on 15-09-08 and in Para-3 of the said written version he has categorically explained about clearance of the dues even in-spite of that the OP-1 has not made any efforts to give the clean chit to the complainant at this itself also goes to show that the Op-1 has failed to fairly discharge his duty in this matter. Hence we hold that the Op-1 committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 11. From the perusal of the complaint the relationship between the OP-2 and the complainant, is as purchaser and vendor and except this there is no any other privity of contract between these two. As per the complainant, OP-2 has received the (8) cheques on behalf of the Op-1 for the due amount. Except this allegation there are no any other allegations against the Op-2. As seen above, all the (8) cheques have been submitted by OP-1 and amount has been withdrawn by the account of the complainant. Even, it is the case of the complainant that the said cheques have been handed over to the OP-2 who in-turn might have given it to the Op-1 because the Op-1 has submitted those cheques and withdraw the amount. Under these circumstances we do not find any case against the OP-2 regarding unfair trade practice or the deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against Op-2. The Op-2 in his written version rightly contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Op-2. Therefore we do not find any reasons to believe that the Op-2 has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence the case against the Op-2 deserves to be dismissed. So Point No-1 is answered in the Affirmative against Op-1 & in the Negative against Op-2. POINT NO.2:- 12. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest though there was a demand by Op-1 and Arbitration proceedings was initiated against the complainant, the complainant no-where in the complaint has mentioned as to what happened to that that he has paid the amount as demanded by Op-1 and it is also not clearly mentioned as to what happened to that Arbitration Case. However as stated above, without verifying the accounts in-respect of repayment of the loan and without submitting the statement of accounts, the Op-1 has issued a demand notice against the complainant and further initiated the Arbitration proceeding and for which the complainant was made to go to Bangalore and approach the Arbitrator. This has caused harassment and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part, against Op 1 only. The OP.No-1 shall pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The case against the Op-2 is dismissed. The OP-1 shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Sri. Datatreya Vinnu against two Opposite Parties-(1) Sri. Ram City Union Finance Ltd., (2) Sri. Ganesh Appliances Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant has purchased LG MY PC (Personal Computer) under Contract No. ISH1CDRCH3464/04 from OP.No-2 by making initial down payment of Rs. 10,894/- through cheque bearing No.BF1432354 of ING Vysya Bank. The said cheque was en-cashed by the OP.No-2 on 13-02-06. On the same day the OP.No-2 has also collected eight post dated monthly cheques bearing Nos. 1432356 to 1432362 and 1432355 respectively for a sum of Rs. 2,225/- each from the complainant, towards the balance price of the said computer purchased by him. The complainant always maintained sufficient balance of more than Rs. 2,225/- in his account throughout the said period in order to honour the cheques. The OP-1 was expected to present each post dated cheque in due date and to en-cash the same for the adjustment of dues. It is the further case of the complainant that the OP-1 issued a demand notice on 23-06-08 by claiming a sum of Rs. 5,432/- as a due without giving any detail statement of accounts justifying the said claim but rather threatened the complainant with initiation of civil and criminal proceedings against him along with threat of charging exorbitant rate of interest @ 30% p.a., in case the complainant failed to tender the said amount within (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The said demand is nothing but a black mailing tactics against the complaint. On receipt of the said notice the complainant had a mobile conversation with the authorized representative of Op.-1 by informing that complainant is not due to the OP.No-1 any amount as he always maintained sufficient balance in his bank account to enable the OP.No-1 to clear the dues cover under the (8) post dated cheques and dis-owned any liability of such amount demanded due to the OP.No-1. It is further contended that the OP.No-1 has got issued summons to the complainant through its Arbitrator Mr. M.V. Murthy by stating initiation of Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 against the complainant for recovery of Rs. 7,537/- and thereby asked him to appear before the said Arbitrator on 19-08-08 at Bangalore. Neither any plaint copy nor any documents justifying the due of such amount is sent along with the said notice to the complainant. The OP.No-1 by taking un-due advantage of the clause for Arbitration in the agreement got signed by the complainant at the time of sanction of loan/ finance facilities, got filed the said false Arbitration case by claiming Rs. 7,537/- although he is not at all legally bound to pay any amount. Therefore demand of such amount with the threat of penal consequences and corresponding act of the OP in filing a false and vexatious arbitration case at the far away place from Raichur without there being any cause of action is nothing but un-fair trade practice and constitute deficiency of service and also it is nothing but abuse of the provisions of law. The OP is in the habit of indiscriminate mis-use of the said clause in filing such false and vexatious case against the like minded persons of the complainant to get wrongful gain. Therefore the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest from the date of complaint till realization for the said complaint filed by the OP including the demand notice with threat of penal consequences issued by the OP.No-1. The complainant further contended that he is not at all liable to pay any dues to the OP.No-1 since the OP.No-2 collected the (8) post dated cheqeus from the complainant on behalf of the OP.No-1 for the due amount at Raichur. Therefore he is also jointly and severally liable for the said compensation for the unlawful demand. 2. In response to service of notice OP.No-1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels. OP. NO-1 has filed written version contending that this OP.No-1 has no knowledge whether the OP.No-2 en-cashed the down payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. BF 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank from whom the complaint purchased the said computer on 13-02-06 and the OP.No-2 collected (8) post dated monthly cheques from the complainant, whether the cheques were from the account of the complainant bearing No. 121011003528 and they commenced from 07-05-06 to 07-12-06 and bore cheque No. 1432356 to 1432362 and 1432355 respectively for a sum of Rs. 2,225/- each towards the balance price of the said computer, whether all these post dated cheques were collected by OP.No-2 from complainant on the same day the cheque for Rs. 10,894/- was received. Further contended that it is also not within the knowledge of this OP. whether the complainant always mentioned sufficient balance of more than Rs. 2,225/- in his account throughout the said period. The OP.No-1 further contended that he is into consumer durable finance which includes television, refrigerator, washing machines, computers etc., at 0% interest, as such the company is not at all liable for any proceedings, since the OP.No-1 have not collected any service charges from the complainant as such are exclusively excluded as per section 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act. The OP.No-1 works under M2C (Manufacturer 2 Consumer) concept of business, wherein this OP.No-1 finances the products purchased by the consumers through any of the chain of dealers ( Viz., OP.No-2) of the manufacturer at 0% interest plus zero service charges, the various manufacturers in order to promote their products bear the finance charges on behalf of the consumers. It is further contended that first notice sent by the Arbitrator has a express clause in the notice which clearly states as However if you have made payments immediately prior to receiving this notice or earlier, please furnish us the proof of payment to avoid further action, which may be taken against you what prevented the complainant to write to OP.No-1 and provide proof of his payments, this attitude of the complainant clearly depicts that he has slept over the notice. The complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous false and vexatious one. The OP.No-1 is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant since the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands but with an ulterior motive and to have financial gains by using the process of this Honble Forum and to harass the OP.No-1 which has been awarded/conferred by different business consortiums in consumer durable segments, for innovating an idea for providing free service to consumers across the country and getting within reach all those products that was a dream for many a people. Further the OP.No-1 prayed this Forum to reject the complaint of the complainant with heavy cost and also to compensate the OP.No-1 for having been dragged to this Forum without any cause and award the cost of the legal expenses. 3. The OP.No-2 has filed his written version contending that he is no way concerned to the alleged finance facility transactions in between the complainant and OP.No-1 therefore he is not at all liable to answer the claim of the complainant and he is not at all a necessary and proper party to the complaint. There is no previty of contract in between the complainant and OP.No-2 in respect of the grievances of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and even absolutely there is no allegations against the OP.No-2 in this regard. The OP.No-2 further contended that the complainant has not at all delivered the (8) post dated cheques to OP.No-2 in order to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the Honble Forum has made such false allegations. Further contended that the unnecessarily complainant has dragged the OP.No-2 to the litigation. The conduct of the complainant has put the OP.No-2 to harass and mental agony. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and he has got marked (4) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. In rebuttal the OP. NO-1 has filed sworn affidavit of Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Rudrappa, Authorized Signatory Sri Ram City Union Finance ltd., Bangalore, and he has got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. OP.NO-2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency in service by the OPs as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Affirmative against Op-1 & Negative against Op-2. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute regarding purchase of LGMYPC (personal computer) from OP-2 with the financial assistance by the OP-2 under contract No. ISHICDRCHO 3464/06 by making initial payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank Branch, Raichur. It is also not disputed that the remaining balance amount shall be paid by (8) installments at Rs. 2,225/-. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase of the said computer from the Op-2 he has submitted (8) post dated cheques bearing Nos. 1432356 to 1432362 & 1432355 for the remaining balance commencing from 07-05-06 to 07-12-06 and he had maintained sufficient fund in his account in order to honour the said post dated cheques. Further it is the case of the complainant that without giving the details of the statement of account justifying the dues in-respect of the balance, the OP-1 had issued a demand notice on 23-06-08 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,432/- and threatened him with initiation of civil & criminal proceedings along with threat of charging exorbitant rate of interest @ 30% p.a. in case, the complainant failed to tender said amount within (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice and the said demand is nothing but a blackmailing tactics against him. Further it is the case of the complainant that even in-spite of several mobile conversation with the Authorized Representatives of the Op-1 informing that the complainant is not due to the OP-1 any amount as he always maintained sufficient balance in his bank account to enable the OP-1 to clear the dues covered under the (8) post dated cheques and therefore the complainant dis-owned any liability of such amount of demand made by the OP-1. But even in-spite of his phone conversation the OP-1 had initiated the Arbitrary proceedings against him under Arbitration Case No. 51132/2008 for recovery of Rs. 7,537/- and has asked the complainant to approach before the said Arbitrator at Bangalore. On 19-08-08. This act of the Op-1 is nothing but a unfair trade practice and also constitute deficiency of service and abuse of the process of the law. Hence approached this Forum for appropriate relief. 8. The OP-1 has contended that he has no knowledge whether the OP-2 has encashed the down payment of Rs. 10,894/- vide cheque No. BF 1432354 of ING Vysya Bank from whom the complainant purchased the computer on 13-02-06 and about the (8) post dated cheques which are alleged to be collected from the OP-2 by the complainant and also regarding sufficient funds maintained by the complainant in order to honour said (8) post dated cheques on their presentation. He has also contended that first notice sent by Arbitrator has express clause in the notice which clearly states as However if you have made payments immediately prior to receiving this notice or earlier please furnish us the proof of payment to avoid further action which may be taken against you. Even inspite of this notice the complainant has not replied and not provide of the proof of his payments. This attitude of the complainant clearly depicts that, he has slept over the matter. Further he has contended that the OP-1 is in to consumer durable finance at 0% interest and not collected any service charges from the complainant, as such exclusively excluded as per section 2(O) of the CP Act. Hence OP-1 is not at all liable for any compensation claimed by the complainant and prayed to reject the complaint with cost. 9. The OP.No-2 contended that he is in no way concerned to the alleged finance facility transactions in between the complainant and OP.No-1. There is no previty of contract in between the complainant and OP.No-2 in respect of the grievances of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and even absolutely there is no allegation against this OP.No-2 in this regard. The OP.No-2 further contended that the complainant has not at all delivered the (8) post dated cheques. Therefore the OP-2 sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost-. 10. The complainant has filed in all four documents namely: (1) Demand Notice dt. 23-06-08 issued by the OP-1 to the complainant, at ExP-1. Summons in Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 issued by Arbitrator Sri. M.V. Murthy to the complainant, at Ex.P-2. Statement of Account issued by ING Vysya Bank, Raichur Branch of the complainant from 01-02-06 to 28-02-07, at Ex.P-3 & Xerox copy of written statement filed in Arbitration Case. 51132/08, at Ex.P-4. Similarly the OP-1 has filed two documents namely: (1) Legal Notice issued in Contract No. ISHICDRCH05184/07, at Ex.R-1. and (2) Shriram City Union Finance Agreement Booklet is marked at Ex.R-2. 11. From the close perusal of the Ex.P-3 i.e, Statement of Account issued by ING Vysya Bank, Raichur Branch of the complainant from 01-02-06 to 28-02-07 it is clearly discloses that (8) cheques have been sent for collection by OP-1 and same have been debited in the complainants account. The details in this regard are as under:- Sl.No. Cheque No. Date of transaction Amount 1. BF1432356 08-06-07 2,225/- 2. BF1432357 14-06-07 2,225/- 3. BF1432358 29-07-06 2,225/- 4. BF1432359 06-10-06 2,225/- 5. BF1432360 06-10-06 2,225/- 6. BF1432362 21-11-06 2,225/- 7. BF1432361 23-11-06 2,225/- 8. BF1432355 22-12-06 2,225/- From these entries in Ex.P-3 it is crystal clear that the complainant has given (8) post dated cheques in order to clear off the remaining balance of the price of the computer purchased by him through OP-2. It is also clear that about possessing of the said (8) cheques by OP-1 and same have been presented by OP-1 itself and the (8) cheques amount in all Rs. 17,800/- has been withdrawn by the complainant, account in-respect of due. These entries also clearly goes to show that the entire installments amount has been received by Op-1 before the end of December 2006 as contended by the complainant. Though the complaint of the complainant and written version of Op 1 & 2 are not clear about the cost of the computer but from the pleadings of the parties and the entries found in Ex.P-3, it appears that the cost of the computer is in all Rs. 28,690/- out of which the complainant had paid 10,894/- in advance and Rs. 17,800/- has been paid in (8) installments. Thus we do not find any reason to believe that neither the complainant is due to the tune of Rs. 5,432/- as demanded by Op-1 through Ex.P-1 demand notice nor Rs. 7,537/- as per Ex.P-2. Arbitration summons issued under Arbitration Case No. 51132/08 by Arbitrator M.V. Murthy. It is worthwhile to note that the Op-1 himself has submitted all the (8) post dated cheques for collection and same have been honoured and credited to the account of OP-1 before the end of December 2007 but no where the Op-1 has stated about what was the loan advanced and what was the cost of the computer. But instead issued a notice for claiming the dues against the complainant and initiated Arbitration proceedings which itself would goes to show that the Op-1 is lacking with the fair approach in dealing the matter with the complainant. Hence we do not find any wrong about the contention of the complainant regarding the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the Op-1. It is further worthwhile to note that before verifying the accounts and details of repayment by the complainant OP-2, issued notice against the complainant for recovery of dues and initiated the proceedings under Arbitration Act against the complainant which will hold no justice on the part of the OP. However the complainant after receiving the Arbitration proceedings under Ex.P-2 approached and filed his written version on 15-09-08 and in Para-3 of the said written version he has categorically explained about clearance of the dues even in-spite of that the OP-1 has not made any efforts to give the clean chit to the complainant at this itself also goes to show that the Op-1 has failed to fairly discharge his duty in this matter. Hence we hold that the Op-1 committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 11. From the perusal of the complaint the relationship between the OP-2 and the complainant, is as purchaser and vendor and except this there is no any other privity of contract between these two. As per the complainant, OP-2 has received the (8) cheques on behalf of the Op-1 for the due amount. Except this allegation there are no any other allegations against the Op-2. As seen above, all the (8) cheques have been submitted by OP-1 and amount has been withdrawn by the account of the complainant. Even, it is the case of the complainant that the said cheques have been handed over to the OP-2 who in-turn might have given it to the Op-1 because the Op-1 has submitted those cheques and withdraw the amount. Under these circumstances we do not find any case against the OP-2 regarding unfair trade practice or the deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against Op-2. The Op-2 in his written version rightly contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Op-2. Therefore we do not find any reasons to believe that the Op-2 has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Hence the case against the Op-2 deserves to be dismissed. So Point No-1 is answered in the Affirmative against Op-1 & in the Negative against Op-2. POINT NO.2:- 12. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest though there was a demand by Op-1 and Arbitration proceedings was initiated against the complainant, the complainant no-where in the complaint has mentioned as to what happened to that that he has paid the amount as demanded by Op-1 and it is also not clearly mentioned as to what happened to that Arbitration Case. However as stated above, without verifying the accounts in-respect of repayment of the loan and without submitting the statement of accounts, the Op-1 has issued a demand notice against the complainant and further initiated the Arbitration proceeding and for which the complainant was made to go to Bangalore and approach the Arbitrator. This has caused harassment and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part, against Op 1 only. The OP.No-1 shall pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The case against the Op-2 is dismissed. The OP-1 shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.