BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 09/2017 Filed on 06/01/2017

ORDER DATED:  30/04/2022

The order delivered on 30/04/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant had availed the service of the 2^nd opposite party during 2014 when the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner for her domestic use.  The 2^nd opposite party is a financier and they had arranged a loan for the purchase of the Air Conditioner from the 1^st opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party as a compliment for being availed their service has issued a credit card.  It was assured by them that the complainant can use this card for any purchase to a limit of Rs.61,000/- with 0% interest.  The amount so availed using the card is repayable in equal monthly instalments.  2^nd opposite party is the Thiruvananthapuram branch office of the 4^th opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is dealing with the customer care aspects of opposite parties 2 and 4.  The complainant had regularly repaid the entire amount for the purchase of the Air Conditioner at the rate of Rs.2259/- without any default.  Thus the said loan was closed during 2015.  Thereafter the complainant did not check her statement of account with the SBT since there were no amounts payable to the opposite parties.  The complainant during 2016 had made a small purchase from QRS, Thiruvananthapuram using the credit card of the 2^nd opposite party for buying a mobile phone.  The complainant regularly remitted the monthly instalment of Rs.1982 in her SBT account to be adjusted by the 2^nd opposite party by transfer of money into the loan account on the 5^th of every month.  The said loan account need to be closed only on March 2017.  The complainant had during November 2016 obtained the statement of account from the Bank and the complainant was surprised to note that the 2^nd opposite party had collected an amount of Rs.1540/- from the complainant’s SB account maintained with SBT Santhi Nagar Branch as instalment of amount due from the complainant.  The complainant did not make any purchase after the closing the first loan for Air Conditioner, using the credit card other than the purchase of an LG mobile phone from QRS, Thiruvananthapuram.  There was no occasion for her to make any payment as instalment of loan to the opposite parties 2 to 4.  The complainant therefore immediately brought this anomaly into the notice of the opposite parties 2 to 4. It was learned by the complainant from opposite parties 2 to 4 that the complainant had purchased a Samsung J7 mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party on 20/09/2016 and therefore the deduction of money from complainant’s account.  The complainant alerted the opposite parties that the complainant did not make any such purchase from the 1^st opposite party using the Credit card which was in complainant possession.  But the explanations given by the opposite parties 2 to 4 are not friendly and there was occasion to face harassment from them.  The complainant therefore closed her loan account by paying the entire amount due to the 2^nd opposite party in the purchase of LG mobile phone.  She has also surrendered the credit card to the 2^nd opposite party.    The opposite parties deliberately without the knowledge and consent of the complainant had included the credit purchase of someone into the complainant account and thus caused much mental trauma and pain to the complainant.  The opposite parties deliberately or negligently handled the matter and therefore the complainant to pay the loan instalment to the purchase made by someone from the 1^st opposite party.  The act of opposite parties 1 to 4 amount’s to deficiency in service, hence this complaint. 

                         Even though 1^st opposite party received notice they have not appeared before this commission, hence opposite party 1 was set ex-parte. Opposite parties 2 to 4 entered appearance and filed version stating that the opposite party is a Non-Banking Finance Company registered with RBI and also registered with Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Mumbai.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 submits that the complainant had availed above 2 loans from the EMI Card No.2030400194018737 and both the above lnos stands closed.  The complainant has paid all the EMI’S and closed the account.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 also submits that the No-Objection certificate has also been issued to the complainant.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 submits that another loan vide loan No.414CDD27949045 belong to the complainants brother Mr.Darshan Vishwanath who had purchased a Samsung Camera from the dealer for a amount of Rs.15,400/-.  The monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.1,540/- and the contract period was for 10 months.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 submits that due to a mismatch in the name of the complainant and complainant’s brother, the details were wrongly updated and hence an amount of Rs.3,080/- was deducted from the complainants account.  The opposite parties 2 to 4 submits that after the said error has been brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties 2 to 4, corrective action has been taken and an amount of Rs.3,080/- has been refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties 2 to 4 dated 9^th February 2017 via NEFT and the same is imperative from the statement of Account.  Opposite parties 2 to 4 is not liable to pay any compensation and interest as claimed by the complainant in the complaint.  There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 2 to 4, hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.

Issues:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

 Issues (i) & (ii):-Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 & he has produced 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P 6. The complainant was not cross examined by the opposite parties 2 to 4 nor have they adduced any oral or documentary evidence.  The complainant filed argument note.  It is admitted by opposite parties 2 to 4 in their version that since the details of the complainant and complainant’s brother were wrongly updated an amount of Rs 3,080/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.  It is also submitted by opposite parties 2 to 4 that the amount deducted from the account of the complainant has been refunded to the complainant via NEFT cannot be accepted as the opposite parties 2 to 4 has not produced any evidence to prove the same.  Since opposite party 1 has nothing to do with these transactions they were exonerated.  From the evidence and exhibits it is seen that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 2 to 4, hence opposite parties 2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the complaint allowed. The opposite parties 2 to 4  are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.3080/- (Rupees Three Thousand Eighty Only) to the complainant and pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only)  as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant & also pay            Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amounts except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30^th  day of April  2022.

                     Sd/-

            P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

                      Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

                     Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

   C.C. No. 09/2017

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R