This case has been filed U/s 34 AND 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant that in the middle of the year 2019 the complainant purchased a smart phone VIVO Funtech 1807 with OS 4.5 and 1.95 GHz Snapdragon 439 Octa-Core Processor, alongwith IMEI 1:866472041983051 and IMEI 2:866472041983044 on finance of opposite parties’ company paying down payment of Rs. 5700/- out of its price of Rs. 15,030/- excluding CGST and SGST charges from “Ma Telecom” of Jirat vide LAN (loan account number) 410DPFEL174255 and after purchasing the aforesaid smart phone set the complainant bound to pay Rs. 10,969/-. Actually the opposite parties withdrew amount time to time from the complainant’s savings bank account directly using ECS in six parts/ six installments such as on 2.7.2019- Rs. 1910/-, on 2.8.2019- Rs. 1876/-, on 3.9.2019- Rs. 1876/-, on 3.10.2019- Rs. 1876/-, on 2.11.2019- Rs. 1876/- and on 10.11.2020- Rs. 1555/- when the rate of installment was Rs. 1555/- per month and ignoring the agreement bounded terms and conditions, in this abovementioned way the opposite parties received Rs. 16,669/- in total including down payment of Rs. 5700/- as and when the price of the said smart phone set was Rs. 15,030/-. Therefore the complainant already paid more Rs. 1639/- of his loan upto the month of November, 2020 though the collection and/ or recovery agents of the opposite parties’ are creating pressure inhumanly upon him over telephone and after coming at home claiming more money to pay by cash like Rs. 640/-, Rs. 6040/-, Rs. 5000/- etc time to time and last the opposite parties send message on 12^th October, 2020 giving intimation to pay him overdue amount of Rs. 4,050/- without delay and thereafter the opposite parties company send SMS one after another to pay installment, dishonor charges of Rs. 550/- as it is are still outstanding in his loan account.

            In the meantime the complainant purchased another smart phone-m VIVO Aquamarine Green V20 with SE (8+128GB) along with IMEI 1: 864433051422093 and IMEI 1: 864433051422085 on finance of the opposite parties’ company again; paying down payment of Rs. 7521/- out of its’ price of Rs. 16940/- plus Rs. 3050/- as CGST and SGST charges on 16.4.2021 from “Mobile India” vide LAN 08EDPFGX854048 and its installment for repayment of the said loan fixed by 10 installments @ Rs. 1333/- each from the end of the opposite parties finance company.

            After purchasing said VIVO Aquamarine Green V20 smart phone set the complainant requested to be concerned authority of the opposite parties’ company time and again to adjust the excess payment of Rs. 1639/- which he already made in connection with LAN and the rest amount of balance-in-LAN of Rs. 306/- will also be adjusted with the next installment as this time of pandemic situation but the opposite parties remaining unturned and claiming more money which have no adequate and proper grounds. Therefore having no way the complainant sent legal notice dt. 30.6.2021 to the opposite parties to solve these unwanted problems but they did not pay heed to the request.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay the amount which they took from the complainant which they had not adjust with the installment of LAN and to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- along with up-to-date accrued interest and to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- for worries and anxieties as the compensation and to pay the cost of the case and to give any relief/ reliefs as deem fit and proper.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

            Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Issue number 1

In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as the complainant is said to have purchased two smart phones bearing numbers VIVO FUNTECH 1807 with OS 4.5 and 1.95 GHz and VIVO AQUAMERINE GREEM V20 with SE(8+128GB) from “MA TELECOM” of Jirat station road, Jirat P.S Balagarh, Dist. Hoogly.

Issue number 2

Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding 50,00,000/-. So, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

Both the issue numbers 3 and 4 are taken up together for the sake of convenience

A perusal of the petition of complaint indicates in its paragraph 1 that the petitioner purchased a smart phone VIVO FUNTECH 1807 with OS 4.5 and 1.95 GHz and according to the petitioner himself the present phone excludes CGST and SGST charges.

It further appears from paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint the complainant purchased another smart phone VIVO ACQUAMARINE GREEN V20 with SE(8+128GB) with CGST and SGST for RS. 3050.

The schedule of the petition of complaint describes excess amount of Rs 1639( rupees one thousand six hundred thirty nine) has already been paid to the opposite parties but not adjusted with the installment of LAN 08EDPFGX854048 intentionally and deliberately by the opposite parties.

Though much has been stated by the complainant about his claim of excess amount of Rs. 1639( referred to schedule of the amount in question), yet the complainant has failed to substantiate his excess payment of Rs. 1639 by production of any documentary evidence which could be the best evidence in support of his claim; nor does it appear anywhere from the petition of complaint why the smart phone VIVO FUNTECH 1807 with OS 4.5 and 1.95 GHz excludes CGST and SGST when the second one referred to above in Para 4 of the petition of complaint includes Rs. 3050 as CGST and SGST charges. Evidence of the complainant as P.W-1 does not make any whisper justifying the above irregularity.

On consideration of the above facts and circumstances this commission can not entertain the instant petition of complaint and

  Hence,

 it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 88 of 2021   be and the same stands dismissed  ex parte with no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.