DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

  Date of Filing:               Date of Admission Hearing:             Date of Disposal

         10.01.2018                           18.01.2018                             29.12.2021                        

P R E S E N T     :-  Smt. Sukla Sengupta……….President

                             :-   Smt. Monisha Shaw…………………Member

                             :-   Sri Susmit Hrishikesh Bhattacharya……..Member

JUDGMENT

          The Complainant filed this petition of complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date. The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant booking a Sofa set to the O.P. No. 2 namely MODFURN. Being the O.P. No. 2 of this case on 05/06/2016 at a consideration of Rs. 21,551/- out of which he paid in advance a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on the date of booking the Sofa set.

          It was agreed that the rest amount of Rs. 20,551/- will be paid to the O.P. No. 1 as a financer by the Complainant at E.M.I. of Rs. 3,467/- per month for 12 months and the delivery date was fixed on 21/06/2021.

          Subsequently, due to dissatisfaction the Complainant cancelled the said order vide email dated 16/07/2016 and requested the O.P. No. 2 for return the advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- and the said O.P. No. 2 that is the authority of Modfurn returned the same on 06/08/2016 to the Complainant through O.P. No. 3 that is the Manager of Jalan Interiors.

          It is further stated that inspite of the same, surprisingly, the authority of Bajaj Financer Ltd. deducted an amount of Rs. 3,467/- on 26/07/2016 as E.M.I from the account of the Complainant and also deducted Rs. 350/- on 10/08/2016 from the account of the Complainant vide  Account No. 31812683370 of State Bank of India, Kalyani branch. Thereafter, the Complainant again requested the O.P.  No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 3,467/- and Rs. 350 i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,817/- which was deducted from the account of the Complainant but the authority of Bajaj Finance did not return the same.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . . .

: :  2  : :

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

Thereafter, the Complainant went to the local office of Bajaj Finance and met with one Manoj Ghosh and Abhijit Giri the staff of O.P. No. 1 and requested both in verbal and in writing to refund the deducted E.M.I amounting to Rs. 3,817/- in total but they did not pay any heed to the word of the Complainant. Having no other alternative the Complainant filed a petition before the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P, Salt Lake for mediation but due to non co-operation of the O.P. members. The mediation was not worked out and the complaint was dropped with a direction to file specific case before the Hon’ble President, D.C.D.R.C., Barasat, North 24 Parganas for redressal. Hence the case is filed by the Complainant with a prayer to give a direction upon the O.P.  members to refund the E.M.I amount of Rs. 3,817/- in total to the Complainant immediately which was deducted from the account of the Complainant as E.M.I with interest and also to give a direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and other relief / reliefs.

          The O.P. No. 1, Bajaj Finance Ltd. has contested the case by filing a W/V denying all the materials allegations be leveled against it.

       It is stated by the O.P. No. 1 in its W/V that the Bajaj Finance Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provision of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in Mumbai – Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune 411 035, Corporate office at 4^th Floor, ‘Bajaj Finserv’, Off Pune – Ahmednagar Rd, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411 014, Maharashtra, (India) and is represented by the Authorised Signatory Mr. Lal Singh.

          The O.P. No. 1 further denied and disputes all the contentions, claims, demands, allegations, averments, imputations of the Complainant against leveled it. Save and except what is already been specifically admitted in the W/V it is alleged by the O.P. No. 1 in its W/V that the petition of complaint is totally frivolous, baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and it is filed by the Complainant only to harass and blackmail the O.P. No. 1.

          It is the further case of the O.P. No. 1 that after purchasing the product from the dealer the Complainant had availed two financial loans from the O.P. No. 1 vide loan account No. 410SCE24151265 for an amount of Rs. 62,400/- dated 15/06/2016 for a contract period of 18 months, and the monthly EMI to be paid was Rs. 3,467/- which is evident from the statement of account which was filed earlier.

          It is further stated that the O.P. No. 1 deducted the monthly installment which due to some unavoidable circumstances could not get clear and got dishonoured due to the reason of ‘Insufficient Funds’ , thus, the answering Opposite Party deducted the said amount of Rs. 3,817/- from the account of the Complainant. However, the loan has been cancelled on the request made by the Complainant since the order with the dealer / manufacturer was cancelled and thus an amount of Rs. 6,934/- has been refunded to the Complainant vide UTR No. CMS458264010 dated 09/08/2016 which is reflected from the statement of account.

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . . .

: :  3  : :

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

          It is the further case of the O.P. No. 1 that the loan account has been cancelled and also the amount has been refunded including all the incidental charges as well. So, there is / was no more dispute or claim of the Complainant.

          It is also stated by the O.P. No. 1 that there is / was no deficiency on the part of the O.P. No. 1 as the loan account stands cancelled on the request of the Complainant and the amount was deducted has also been refunded. So, the Complainant has got no further claim to that effect as he prayed before the Hon’ble Commission in his petition of complaint.

          It is the further case of the O.P. No. 1 that the O.P. No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation and interest as claimed by the Complainant and the Complainant made an attempt to give misleading information to the Hon’ble Court which is nothing but abuse of process of law and waste valuable time of the Court.

Thus, the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

The case has run ex-parte against O.P. No. 2 and 3.

Point of Consideration

1. Is there any cause of action to file this case?
2. Is the Complainant a Consumer under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
3. Is there any deficiency of service?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
5. To what other relief / reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Decisions with Reasons

          It is the case of the Complainant being a purchaser of the Sofa Set. He booked a Sofa Set from the O.P. No. 2, MODFURN on 05/06/2016 at a consideration of Rs. 21,551/- out of which he paid an advance of Rs. 1,000/- on the date of booking.

          It was agreed by and between the parties that the rest amount of the consideration money of the Sofa Set i.e. Rs. 20,551/- will be paid to the O.P. No. 1 as a financer by the Complainant at EMI of Rs. 3,467/- per month for 12 months and the delivery date of the Sofa Set was fixed on 21/06/2021.

          Subsequently, due to dissatisfaction, the Complainant cancelled the said order vide email dated 16/07/2016 and requested the O.P. No. 2 for returning advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- and that was refunded by the O.P. No. 2 on 06/01/2016 to the Complainant through O.P. No. 3 i.e. Manager of Jalan Interiors.

Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . . .

: :  4  : :

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

          From the W/V of the O.P. No. 1 i.e. Bajaj Finance Ltd., it appears that the said fact has been admitted by the O.P. No. 2 Bajaj Finance Ltd. who is represented by one Lalbihari Singh and O.P. No. 1 in its W/V practically admitted the fact that the Complainant booked a Sofa set from the O.P. No. 2 on 05/06/2016 at a consideration of Rs. 21,551/- on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as advance money and subsequently due to dissatisfaction he cancelled that booking order and the advance money of Rs. 1,000/- was refunded to the Complainant by the O.P. No. 2 through O.P. No. 3.

          It is also admitted fact that it was agreed by and between the parties that the rest amount of Rs. 20,551/- could be paid by the Complainant through EMI and that loan amount will be paid by the O.P. No. 1 Bajaj Finance Ltd. and the EMI will be deducted to the tune of Rs. 3,467/- per month for 12 months from the loan account of the Complainant and the date of delivery of the Sofa Set was on 21/06/2021.

          From the evidence on record, it appears that even after cancellation of the booking order and after getting the refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the O.P. No. 2, the EMI of Rs. 3,467/- was deducted by the O.P. No. 1 on 26/07/2016 along with Rs. 350/- which was deducted on 10/08/2016. On repeated calls by the Complainant did not indulge the O.P. members to give any positive answer to the Complainant  and to refund the amount of Rs. 3,817/- which was illegally deducted by the O.P. members from the Account No. 31812683370 of State Bank of India, lying in the name of the Complainant at Kalyani Branch. The O.P. No. 1 has submitted during the course of arguments that the EMI was deducted along with Rs. 350/- but that was refunded to the Complainant which was deducted.

          So, from the above made discussions it is crystal clear that the Sofa Set in question was booked by the Complainnat from the O.P. No. 2 namely MODFURN and he paid Rs. 1,000/- as advance money out of the total consideration of Rs. 21,551/-. It seems that the Complainant is a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and when he requested for refunding the amount of Rs. 3,817/- as EMI and extra charge of Rs. 350/- which was wrongly deducted from his account and the O.P. members did not pay any heed to request then there was sufficient cause of action to come before this Commission with the case.

          From the W/V of the O.P. No. 1 it is found that admittedly the Complainant availed a financial loan from the O.P. No. 1 vide loan account No. 410SCE24151265 for a contract period of 18 months and the monthly EMI to be paid was Rs. 3,467/- has shown in the statement of account submitted by the O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant. It is also admitted fact that after the Complainant availed the loan, the O.P. No. 1 deducted the monthly installments which due to some unavoidable circumstances could not get cleared and got dishonoured due to the reason of “Insufficient Funds” interalia, the answering O.P. No. 1 deducted the said amount of Rs. 3817/- + 350/- from the account of the Complainant on 26/07/2016 and 10/08/2016.

Contd. To Page No. 5 . . . . .

: :  5  : :

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

From the statements of accounts has submitted by the Complainant along with written complaint as annexure 4. From the W/V filed by the O.P., it appears that admittedly the Complainant subsequently cancelled the booking order of the Sofa Set in question vide letter dated 16/07/2016 which has been brought into evidence as annexure 2 by a cancellation letter issued by the Complainant dated 16/07/2016 and the matter was informed to the financer i.e. O.P No. 1 also but inspite of having the cancellation letter dated 16/07/2016 the O.P. No. 1 financer has deducted a sum of Rs. 3,467/- on 26/04/2016 and Rs. 350/- on 10/08/2016 in total Rs. 3,817/- for which the Complainant sent a letter dated 19/08/2017 to the O.P. No. 1 to refund the amount.

          It is the admitted position that the Complainant after cancellation of the said order vide email dated on 16/07/2016 requested O.P. No. 2 to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- and the said O.P. No. 2 that is the authority of MODFURN, refunded the Complainant through Jalan Interiors dated 06/08/2016.

From the evidence on record and the submission of the Ld. Advocate for both the sides it is palpably clear that the Complainant booked the Sofa Set from MODFURN Interiors on 05/06/2016 and cancel the same due to some dissatisfaction on 16/07/2016 (annexure 2) and the advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- out of total valuation of the Sofa Set of Rs. 21,551/- was also returned by the O.P. No. 2 to the Complainant through the O.P. No. 3 on 06/08/2016. After the booking of the Sofa Set in question has also been cancelled deduction of the EMI by the O.P. No. 1 has been cancelled vide email id dated 16/07/2016. Hence, question of deduction of EMI by the O.P. No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 3,467/- from the account of the State Bank of India of the Complainant on 26/07/2016 and Rs. 350/- on 10/08/2016 has no basis at all and the O.P. No. 1 has deducted the amount illegally which is liable to be refunded to the Complainant.

From the evidence on record it is also crystal clear that the Complainant requested the O.P. No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 3,467/- and Rs. 350/- vide its letter dated 19/08/2017 but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed to his request rather O.P. No. 1 stated that how the amount could be refunded by the O.P. No. 1.

Rather the O.P. No. 1 in its W/V has stated that after cancellation of the order, an amount of Rs. 6,934/- has been refunded to the Complainant vide UTR No. CMS458264010  dated 09/08/2016 but that has not been shown in the bank statement filed by the Complainant which has been brought into evidence as annexure 4.

On a close scrutiny of annexure 4 it appears that nothing has been created in the State Bank of India Account, Kalyani Branch of the Complainant on 09/08/2016 vide UTR No. CMS458264010 sent by the O.P. No. 1 amounting to Rs. 6,934/- rather it is reflected from the annexure 4 that on 10/08/2017, a sum of Rs. 350/- has been debited from the account of the Complainant. It is alleged by the Complainant that even after cancellation of the booking of Sofaset in question, the O.P. has illegally deducted the

Contd. To Page No. 6 . . . . .

: :  6  : :

C. C.  CASE NO.  22/2018

EMI amounting to Rs. 3,467/- along with Rs. 350/- in total Rs. 3,817/- and we got the support of the allegation made by the Complainant against the O.P. from annexure 4.

Hence, in view of the discussions made above, this Commission is of view that the Complainant of the present case could be able to prove his case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt that he is a bonafide consumer and there is / was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. members and the O.P. members had no scope to deduct the EMI amounting Rs. 3,467/- along with Rs. 350/- from the State Bank of India Account of the Complainant at Kalyani Branch even after cancellation of the booking of the Sofa-set in question. So, they are duty-bound to refund the amount of Rs. 3,467/- + Rs. 350/- as debited by them in total Rs. 3,817/- to the Complainant with interest @ 5% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 3,817/-.

The Complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- for harassment, mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation cost.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case being No. C.C. 22/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No. 1 and ex – parte against O.P. No. 2 and 3 with cost.

The Complainant do get a decree of Rs. 3,817/- along with interest @5% p.a. of the total amount. The O.Ps are jointly and or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,817/- with interest @5% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of the entire amount within a period of 45 days from this date of order.

O.Ps are jointly and or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- within 45 days from this date of order in default the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree through Court.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me        

President   

Member                                              Member                                                      President