Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/330/2019

Smt. T. Indrani W/o C. Nagaraja - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor/ The Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. A. Dorepondi

16 Aug 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15/05/2019

DISPOSED      ON:16/08/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:330/2019

 

DATED: 16th AUGUST 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                             M.Com., LL.B.,

                       

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. T. Indrani W/o C. Nagaraja, Aged about 26 years, R/o Ambedkar Kalyana Mantapa Road, Rajendra Nagara, 1st Cross, Chitradurga.   Represented by her Authorized Person/Authority Holder and GPA Holder by Name Sri. C. Nagaraja, S/o Chandrappa, Ambedkar Kalyana Mantapa Road, Rajendra Nagara, 1st Cross, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. A. Dorepondi, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Proprietor/The Authorized Signatory, Sri. Raghavendra Music Center, Vasavi Mahal Road, Chitradurga Town.   2. The Branch Manager/The Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Fin Serv, Bajaj Finance Limited, Opposite to Theosophical Society, Basaveshwara Talkies Road, Chitradurga Town.   3. The Chief Manager/The Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, P.B. Road, Jagalur Mahalingappa Towers, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate OP.1 and 3)              (OP.2 Placed Ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP.2 to pay approximately Rs. 6,000/- towards the loss of mandate charged though they have collected the monthly installment from the complainant and Op.2 to return Rs. 1,650/- which was collected by the agent or representative of the OP.2.  The grant of  Rs. 25,000/- each i.e. Rs. 75,000/- towards the mental agony, mental sufferings loss of mental peace, annoyance caused to the    complainant by the OPs and grand of Rs. 50,000/- as damages to be paid by the OP.1 and 2 for doing the unfair trade practice and grant of Rs. 50,000/- towards the legal notice charges and total was claimed for Rs. 1,80,400/- and interest   towards mental agony, pain and costs.

2. It is submitted by the complainant that, the OP.1 is the dealers of the electronic goods and etc., The OP.1 has tied up with the OP.2 in respect of the business loans and etc., That the complainant has purchased the PANASONIC+24-E200-DX LED TV for Rs. 12,700/- on 31/01/2018.  For which on OP.1 has arranged the financial assistance with the OP.2 and the OP.1 has informed the complainant that there is no any interest for the loan and the same is free of interest. For which the complainant has agreed and purchased the same by paying Rs. 4,236/- to the OP.1 as down payment and the OP.1 has instructed the complainant to pay remaining approximate amount of Rs. 8,500/- and documentation charged of approximate amount of Rs.500/- in EMI’s i.e in monthly installments. At the time of documentation the OP.2 along with the OP.1 has taken several signatures on blank papers, unfilled loan documents and other documents. In addition to that, the OP.2 has collected two blank cheques with signatures of the complainant as security for the said loan transaction and the OP.2 has undertaken that they will return the same i.e two blank signed and unfilled two cheques soon after completion of the loan.

3. Meanwhile, the OP.2 is sending their representative to collect the monthly EMI regularly. The representative or agent of the OP.2 was used to collect monthly installments of Rs. 1,059/- and the additional amount of Rs. 150/- per month as service charges by demanding the same as a matter of right. But the representative or agent of the OP.2 was not giving any receipts for having received the payments of monthly installments though the complainant and her husband demanded to give the receipts. In addition to that, the OP.2 has recovered Rs. 1,059/-on 12/03/2019 as another installment towards the same through mandate. Totally, the OP.2 has collected Rs. 4,236/- and Rs. 1,059X11=Rs. 11,649/- moreover, the complainant has issued the blank cheques of her banker i.e. the OP.3 and they have deducted the amounts of approximately 25 times of Rs. 236/- as mandate charges for return of cheques and the same is purely negligence of the OP.2 because, the OP.2 has unnecessary given the mandate instructions to the banker of the complainant though the OP.2 has collected the monthly installments though their agent or representative and the same is clearly deficiency in service and defective service of the OP.1 and 2. The OP.1 and 2 have given false instructions to the complainant and cheated the complainant by saying the proposed loan is of free of interest. But the OP.2 has collected Rs. 15,285/- in total, service charges of Rs. 1,650/- and etc.,

4. Due to the illegal act of the OP.1 and 2 the complainant have put into grate loss and mental agony. The above said OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has sent the legal notice to the OPs on 23/04/2019. After service of legal notice they have not replied the same. It apparently shows that there is clearly negligence, deficiency in services and defective services made by the OPs to the complainant. They have presented the cheques for collection unnecessarily for which there is a loss of Rs. 2,250/- towards cheque bouncing charges. The cause of action for this complaint has arisen at Chitradurga when the complainant was purchased the TV set and OPs have collected excess amount of the TV which is within the jurisdiction this  Forum and pray for allow the complaint.

5. On service of notice, OP.1 and 3 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate and filed version, affidavit and written arguments. Notice to OP.2 service he did not appeared before this Forum. And Placed Ex-parte.

6. According to the version filed by the OP.1 is that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

7. Further submitted that the Op.1 is one of repudiated firm and they have not done any un trade practice and they have not shown any negligence or defective or deficiency in service towards the complaint. It is true that the complainant has purchased the TV with the OP.1 as per invoice bill. And further submitted that OP.1 have not collected any installments from the complainant at any point of time. OP.1 has collected only the down payment of Rs.4.236/- from the complainant and same was sent to OP.2.

8. It is  further this OP have no knowledge about collecting blank cheques by the OP.2 from the complainant. But this OP knows that the complainant has issued alleged cheques to the OP.2. The averments made in para 2 to 5 are matter of records and proofs. There is no any cause of action for this complaint against the OP.1 hence pray for dismissal of complaint against OP.1.

9. Accordingly to the version filed by the OP.3 is that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

10. The averments made in para no. 2 to 5 are all false. It is true that the complainant is the customer of OP.3 on the strength of having S.B. account with the OP.1. the OP.3 has imposed the mandate cheque return charges of Rs. 236/- each in the SB account of the complainant the said charged will be levied as per the banking rules and regulations followed by the RBI Circular. The OP.3 is only formal party  and he is not the  necessary party to this complaint. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint against OP.3.

11. Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed his side.   OP.1 side Sri. S.L. Natraja Setty S/o Late Lakshminarayana Setty Proprietor of OP.1 examined himself and they have not produced any documents.  One Sri. E. Prasad Chief manager and P.A. Holder of OP.3 examined himself and they have not produced any documents.

 

12.    Arguments heard.

13.    Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service while collecting excess amount from the complainant and entitle for such other reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         14.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                   Point No.1:-Partly in Affirmative. 

                   Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

15.    Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the complainant and OP.1 and 3 that the complainant was purchased the Panasonic+24-E200-DX LED TV for Rs. 12,700/- on 31/01/2018. The complainant has paid down payment of Rs. 4236/- to the OP.1 and OP.1 has instructed the complainant to pay remaining approximate amount of Rs. 8,500/- and documentation charges of Rs. 500/- the OP.2 have taken two blank cheques from the complainant. After that the OP.2 they have collected excess amount instead of loan amount from the complainant. Accordingly the OP.2 have collected excess amount of Rs. 4,500/- from the complainant. The complainant has paid the entire loan amount to the OP.2. In spite of collecting loan amount the OP.2 have send the cheques to the OP.3 for collection unnecessarily. The OP.3 have collected cheque collection charge from the SB account of the complainant. Even otherwise the complainant has paid installments regularly to the OP.2. The Op.2 have committed deficiency of service, negligence and defective service while they have collected excess amount from the complainant. Due to that the complainant will be put into grate loss and metal agony which cannot be compensated by any other means.

16. We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant. It is clearly shows that the complainant has purchased the TV from the OP.2 by paying down payment of Rs. 4,236/- the remaining amount of Rs. 8,500/- the cost of the TV is of Rs. 12,700/-.  After that the OP.2 have collected documentation charge of Rs. 500/-. After obtaining loan from the OP.2 the complainant has return entire loan amount. After collecting entire loan amount from the complainant the OP.2 have unnecessarily have presented the blank cheque while they have collected from the complainant. The OP.2 have committed deficiency of service while they have collected excess amount from the complainant. Due to that the complainant will be put in to grate loss and mental agony which cannot be compensated by the any other means. Hence the Point no.1 is held partly affirmative. And pass the following order:

            17.    Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP.2 is hereby directed to return the excess amount of Rs. 4,500/- has been collected from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. Till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP.2  is hereby directed to return two blank cheques which have been collected from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan.

It is further ordered that, the OP.2 is hereby directed to return the amount of Rs. 2,250/- has been collected from the complainant towards cheque bounce. Charges unnecessarily.

It is further ordered that, the OP.2 is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs. 6,000/- for the loss of mandate charges incurred by the complainant unnecessarily.

It is further ordered OP.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation including mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

Complainant against OP.1 and 3 are hereby dismissed.

 It is further ordered that, the OP.2 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 16/08/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)    

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Xerox copy of the Tax Invoice dated 31/01/2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	On-line copy of Statement of account of theOP.2 in respect of the loan account of the complainant.
03	Ex-A-3:-	Xerox copy of the Statement of the S.B. Account of the complainant.
04	Ex-A-4:-	Copy of Legal Notice dated 23/04/2019
05	Ex.A-5:-	There Original RPAD postal Receipts.
06	Ex.A-6:-	Three Original RPAD Postal Acknowledgments.

 

 

DW-1: Sri. S.L. Nataraja Setty by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2: Sri.  E. Prasad by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs Nil

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Kms**