Date of filing: 31.08.2017 Date of disposal: 26.04.2018
Complainant: Partha Sarathi Chakraborty, S/o. Late Murari Mohan Chakraborty, resident of 14A, Renaissance Township, PO: Nutanganj, PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 102.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finance Limited/Bajaj Finserv, having is office at Bijoli Apartment, Ullhas, G. T. Road, By-Pass More, PO: Joteram, PS. & Dist: Burdwan, {IN – 713 101.
2. The Manager, Anandamela, having its office at Parcus Road More, G. T. Road, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
3. The Managing Director, Bajaj Finserv, having its Registered office at Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra, 411 035.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Mrinal Kanti Kesh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&3: Ld. Advocate, Sourav Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops with a prayer to pay Rs. 14,066=00 towards the monetary loss, directing to pay Rs. 40,000=00 towards mental pain, agony and harassment, and to pay Rs. 30,000=00 as litigation cost.
The case in short is that the complainant purchased two LED television sets on 12.08.2016 of Rs. 67,000=00 and down payment was made on 12.08.2016 of RS. 17,000=00. As the complainant extended the warranty of the two sets by Rs. 2,839=00 & Rs. 5,708=00 respectively, his balance amounting to Rs. 58,547=00 was meant to be paid by eight equal installments each of Rs. 4,964=00 & Rs. 2,421=00 and it was meant to be drawn through his loan A/c. through ECS. OP-1 deducted the first installment of Rs. 4,964=00 on 18.10.2016 and thereafter he foreclosed the loan account with all the dues as per the agreement with OP-1 on 19.10.2016 of Rs. 34,748=00 and Rs. 19,368=00 respectively. The total amount of Rs. 54,116=00 was paid in cash to the representative of OP-1. Thereafter, the complainant found in his Bank statement that the OP-1 deducted different amounts several times such as Rs. 2,421=00 on 12.02.2016, Rs. 4,964=00 on 02.12.2016, Rs. 2,421=00 on 02.01.2017 through ECS. As the complainant’s mobile number was wrongly registered by the OP, he could not access the loan account and get the SMS. As a consequence of minimum balance in the account, after the Ops tried to deduct amount, bounce charges were deducted from the account such as Rs. 288/- on 05.01.2017, 09.01.2017, 06.03.2017, 13.03.2017, 05.04.2017, 10.04.2017, 05.05.2017, 09.05.2017 and 08.06.2017. In the meantime the complainant requested the OP-1 to step the ECS, but they did not pay need to it.
The OP-1&3 submitted jointly their written version whereas OP-2 is ex parte here. In their W.V. the OP-1 & 3 stated that they deny and dispute all the contentions, claims, demands, allegations, averments, imputations and insinuations of the complainant. The complaint has been filed just to harass and blackmail them. They also said that due to some technical error the date was not updated properly. But they refunded Rs. 5,102=00 on 30.09.2017 and Rs. 4,964=00 on 24.09.2017 to the complainant. They stated that the cashier, who is not at present working with them, did not register the data properly and so did the problem arise.
Points for consideration:
- Is the complainant a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has the Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Ops any deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
Undisputedly, the complainant is a valuable customer, as well as, a consumer of the Ops.
Point No. 1:
From the discussion on this point in terms of provision of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986 the complainant being a customer of the Ops in respect of trade relationship. Hence, the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the Ops.
Point No. 2:
The office and place of business of the Ops is within the district of Burdwan, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The value of the case is within the limit of Rs. 20, 00,000=00. So this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No. 3 & 4:
Both the points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion.
The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops have deducted different amount from the S/B account of the complainant through ECS and sometimes due to lack of sufficient balance in the said S/B account, bounce charges deducted from the said account.
Regarding such deductions and bounce charges, the Ops submits in their written version with affidavit that the complainant has foreclosed both the loan accounts during October 2016 which is also evident from the statement of account, further the complainant has paid the cash and foreclosed the loan account. The Ops further submit that due to some technical error in the records of the OP, the records were not properly updated, however the OP made an attempt to correct the records. The Op further submits that the technical error was due to the non-updating of the foreclosure charges which was not updated by the cashier who is no more with the OP and further the correction have been taken place and the amounts have been also refunded to the complainant.
Therefore, the Ops have on the one hand, admitted their negligence or deficiency in service by not updating the loan account after foreclosure, on the other hand they have tried to shirk their responsibility by making the cashier as scapegoat who is no more working in the concern of the Ops. In that way the Ops cannot bypass their responsibility of such deficiency in service for which the complainant, who is also a senior citizen, faced severe harassment and he had to pay money from his pension account. So it is very much clear that the Ops are grossly deficient in their service and for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the Ops.
In the prayer portion the complainant demanded Rs. 14,066=00 towards the monetary loss due to bounce charges and extra installment amount which has already been incurred by the complainant from his own S/B account. But from the documents filed by the complainant, such as, S.B. A/c. statement being No. 09060100010359 of Bank of Baroda Branch in the name of the complainant Partha Sarathi Chokraborty and Mrs. Renuka Chakraborty from 18.04.2016 to 03.07.2017 wherefrom it is found that the Ops have deducted Rs. 11,112=00 in total as extra premium and inward return charges from the aforementioned A/c. of the complainant.
In the written version filed by the OP-1&3 have stated that the Ops have refunded Rs. 5,102=00 on 30.09.2017 vide UTR No. CMS672890056 towards the Lan No. 4F10CD28116514 and the amount of Rs. 4,964=00 has been refunded to the complainant on 24.09.2017 vide UTR No. CMS666684890 towards the Lan No. 4F10CD27462299. In this respect neither the Ops have not filed any document, nor the complainant has stated anything in his evidence-on-affidavit which has been filed on 19.12.2017, the date after the refund of the amount of Rs. 5,102=00 & Rs. 4,964=00 by the Ops. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that the amounts have not been refunded to his account through ECS or any other means. So as by filing written version through affidavit by the OP-1&3 that the said two amounts have been refunded to the complainant and the complainant has not denied the same by filing any document or by submission, so we can hold that the said two amounts have been refunded to the complainant by the OP-1&3.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get only the rest amount i.e. Rs. {11,112=00 – (Rs. 5102 + Rs. 4964)} = Rs. 1,046=00.
Therefore, the Point No. 3 & 4 is decided in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 162/2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP-1&3 with cost and dismissed ex parte against the OP-2 without any cost with the directions:.
- that the OP No. 1&3 should pay Rs. 1,046=00 to the complainant either jointly or severally towards the monetary loss due to bounce charges and extra installment amount,
- to pay Rs. 2,000=00 to the complainant either jointly or severally towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment,
- to pay Rs. 1,000=00 to the complainant either jointly or severally as litigation cost.
The Op-1&3 are directed to pay the awarded amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, it will carry interest @8% per annum on the total awarded amount for the default period. The complainant is also at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy)
Member DCDRF, Burdwan
