Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/75/2022

P.Ayyamperumal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Finance Department - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                                Date of Complaint Filed : 19.10.2020

                                               Date of Reservation      : 20.01.2023

                                               Date of Order               : 31.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,           : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.75 /2022

TUESDAY, THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

P. Ayyamperumal IRS, M.A., M.L.,

Commissioner of Customs & Gst (Rtd.,),

Advocate,

Plot No.150 B, 4^th Main Road,

Sadasivanagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                                                                                            ... Complainant                

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

   Kotak Mahindra Finance Department,

   Samson Tower, 5^th Floor,

   Pantheon Road,

   Egmore,

   Chennai – 600 008.

 

2.The Manager,

   Reliance Retail Ltd,

   Reliance Digital,

   AVS Crown Plaza, Old No.39,  

   New Door No.391, Velachery Tambaram Road,

   Chennai – 600 042.                                                                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : Party in Person

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party     : Exparte

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party    : M/s. K. Ravikumar

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,    

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to extent the one EMI of Rs.8056/- as cash back and consequently waive the last EMI payable by 5^th February and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant along with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a LG TV OLED55C8PTA under CIN No. U01100MH1999PLC120563 dated 26.11.2018 from the 2^nd Opposite Party, the said TV was costing at Rs.1,45,008/- the Complainant made an initial payment of Rs.32,232/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,12,776/- was financed by the 1^st Opposite Party. At the time of purchasing the TV both the Opposite parties informed the Complainant that after making the 3^rd  EMI one EMI cashback would be credited to his account and the EMI was fixed at Rs.8056/- and the total EMI's was 14 and the 1^st EMI was started from 5^th January 2019 onwards and the last EMI was February 2020. After making the 3^rd EMI the Complainant approached one Salesman by the name of Mr.Ayyappan, who is an employee of the 2^nd Opposite Party who sold the TV to the Complainant for non-payment of one cashback EMI. He contacted the 1^st Opposite Party Kotak Mahindra Bank, but they did not give any concrete reply. The Complainant asked for a loan agreement paper from the 1^st Opposite Party which would indicate the total loan amount financed,  number of EMI, amount of EMI, and the particulars of cash back. when the Complainant asked about the one cash back EMI after the payment of 3^rd  EMI the Opposite parties told the Complainant that the system itself when the Complainant asked about the one cash back EMI after the payment of 3^rd  EMI the opposite parties told the Complainant that the system itself would recognize it and one cash back EMI would be automatically credited to his account. In the first week of November 2019, the Complainant went to Reliance Digital, Velachery, the 2^nd Opposite Party, and told the above grievance. Immediately the 2^nd Opposite Party Reliance Digital gave the phone number and the person to be contacted in Kotak Mahindra viz Kotak CD Manager, 9025843999, Mr.Mani. The Complainant contacted Mr. Mani twice, but no response. Again the Complainant met Mr.Ayyappan of Reliance Digital, who attended to the Complainant in selling the TV and also spoke to someone from Kotak Mahindra the 1st Opposite Party, and assured him that he would get an answer for all the problems. But he did not get the problems solved. Hence the above circumstances made the Complainant with no option left except to put it in writing of his grievances, sent a legal notice dated 26.11.2019 asking the opposite parties to provide loan agreement paper and to extend one cashback amount of EMI as promised. Though the opposite parties received the letter cum notice they have not replied to the Complainant. Hence the Complaint.

 

3. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The 2^nd Opposite Party states that the statements, allegations, and contentions contained in the complaint raised by the Complainant except those that are expressly admitted hereunder, are specifically denied as false, baseless, and misconceived and the Complainant is put to strict proof of each and every statement and allegation made therein. The 2^nd Opposite Party is engaged in the business of retail, selling consumer durables, electronic goods, and Electronic household appliances of various brands under proper authentication and has gained a consumer reputation for its quality and service all over India and has several stores in Chennai and all over Tamil Nadu. The 2^nd Opposite Party sells these products manufactured by various companies and firms by strictly complying with all the norms, rules, and regulations in this regard and by adhering to the provisions thereof. Being a seller, this Opposite Party does not recommend the Finance Department to the Complainant. The Complainant is voluntarily willing to approach the 1^st Opposite Party's Bank for the finance process. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer. The 2^nd Opposite Party submits that the Complainant purchased LG 55 UHD SMART OLED TV OLED55C8 on 26.11.2018 through 1^st Opposite Party's Consumer Finance Value a sum of Rs.1.45,008/-, the Complainant paid an initial payment for TV Rs.32,232/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party further submits that as per Finance Confirmation from the 1^st Opposite Party's Cash back offer for LG TVs (1 EMI Cashback offer). The 1^st Opposite Party's Finance claiming after 3 Successful EMI the Complainant Get Cashback. The Complainant directly visited the 2^nd Opposite Party store, the Complainant met LG Brand Staff Mr.Ayyappan informed the Complainant this was a bank cashback offer that needed to check with the 1^st Opposite Party's Bank. Further submits that the 2^nd Opposite Party discussed with the LG Staff Mr.Ayyappan regarding cashback not received yet. Mr.Ayyappan politely informed this cashback offer is from the 1st Opposite Party's Kotak Cash back offer not to the 2^nd Opposite Party's Reliance cash back, it will be credited only from the 1^st Opposite Party's Mahindra Bank to the Complainant's Account directly. The Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite parties bank cashback offer not received for the Complainant purchasing. There is no relationship between the cash-back offer with the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party alleges that the Complainant filed the above complaint by drawing a dispute voluntarily with the 2^nd Opposite Party for the very purpose of filing the above complaint and for monetary gain with false and frivolous allegations. The 2^nd  Opposite Party further submits that there is no negligence, deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party against the Complainant as alleged by him and the allegations of such nature made by the Complainant are false and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit  and Written Arguments.  No document was marked on the side of 2^nd Opposite Party.

5.The 1^st Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served on them and hence set exparte on 29.04.2022.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant purchased a LG TV model OLED55C8PTA under CIN No. U01100MH1999PLC120563 dated 26.11.2018 from the 2^nd Opposite Party Reliance Digital as seen in Ex.A-1 for the total cost of Rs.1,45,008/- through the 1^st Opposite Party Kotak Mahindra Bank Finance by paying the initial payment of Rs.32,232/- and the balance of Rs.1,12,776/- sought the loan from the 1^st Opposite Party with a fixed EMI of Rs.8056/- for 14 months. The Complainant contends that both the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that after making the payment of the 3^rd EMI there will be a cash back offer of 1 EMI that would be credited to the Complainant account and it is pertinent to note that there is no materialistic evidence to substantiate the claim of the Complainant. Since the said cashback was not credited to the Complainant's account after making the 3^rd EMI aggrieved by that, the Complainant approached the 2^nd  Opposite Party and met the employee cum sales representative Mr.Ayyappan to address the claim moreover the Complainant's representation was also admitted by the 2^nd Opposite Party in their version. Since the onus is not on the 2^nd Opposite Party therefore Mr.Ayyappan conveyed the same to the Complainant and took the grievances of the Complainant by contacting the 1st Opposite Party in front of the Complainant to which the 1^st Opposite Party told that the system itself will recognize and 1 EMI cash back would be credited to the Complainants account. It is appropriate to note that the Complainant's claims are not validated with sufficient proof even after assuming that the 1^st Opposite is liable for the said offer. As contended by the 2^nd Opposite Party the privity of the cash back offer is liable to the 1st Opposite Party but not on the 2^nd Opposite Party moreover insists that the cash back will be credited only from the 1^st Opposite Party Kotak Mahindra Bank to the Complainant account directly. Hence the 2^nd Opposite claims that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by them as alleged by the Complainant is justifiable. As averred by the Complainant on the first week of November 2019 the Complainant again visited the 2nd Opposite Party Reliance Digital , Velachery to address the above-said grievance i.e 1 EMI cash back offer and contacted Mr.Mani of 1^st Opposite Party with the help of Mr.Ayyappan but unable to get any solution. Hence on 21.11.2019 sent a legal notice as per Ex.A-3 to both the Opposite Parties asking to furnish the details of loan agreement and 1 EMI cash back amount as promised though the Opposite Parties received the notice had not given any reply to the Complainant. On careful observation by scrutinising the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission is of the considered view that the Complainant failed to prove his case that the 1^st Opposite Party had offered one EMI as cash back offer with the relevant proofs to demonstrate the claims and also failed to prove that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.                      

Point Nos.2 and 3 :-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 31^st of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	A copy of Invoice
Ex.A2	-	Kotak Mahindra Bank’s SB particulars showing deduction of EMI from the Complainant’s account
Ex.A3	21.11.2019	A copy of legal notice
Ex.A4	-	A copy of Ack received from 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	-	A copy of Ack received from 2nd Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT