FORBCORP PVT.LTD. V/S PRADEEP KUMAR. - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/16/2022

PRADEEP KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

FORBCORP PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

05 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	16 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	17.01.2022
Date of Decision	:	05.05.2023

Pradeep Kumar s/o late Sh. K.R.Verma r/o House No.1106, Sector-15, Panchkula, Haryana

….Complainant

Versus

Forbcorp Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.738, Sector-82, JLPL, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab, ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before: Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

For the Parties: Complainant in person.

OP already ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2022.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1. Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased a tour package/scheme, namely, Forb Club FTK Leisure Member ship Agreement, with Membership Agreement ID: FTK-552653 on 04.01.2019 of Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as OP) with the tenure for 48 months with payment of EMI of Rs.1,683/- and one time down payment of Rs.14,250/-. The total amount was concluded at Rs.95,034/-.The complainant had paid the down payment Rs.14,250/- and submitted three post dated cheques for the necessary ECS procedure. However, the OP had failed to initiate the ECS and started withdrawing the EMI amount for three months continuously. It is submitted that, in the month of April 2019, the cheque was not cleared due to some reason but the OP did not alert the complainant at that time. The OP informed the complainant after six months i.e. September 2019 and claimed for late charges at an additional rate of EMI Rs.3,000/- and final price of the tour package went up by Rs.66,000/-. It is also alleged that the complainant followed all the directions of the OP and submitted the desired documents/papers as asked by it but the OP has not provided the scanned copy of agreement and submitted cheque/payment, receipt which was demanded by the complainant from it. It is submitted that the complainant have communicated eight times i.e. on 22.03.2020, 16.03.2020, 15.03.2020, 06.02.2020, 01.02.2020, 23.01.2020, 21.01.2020, 01.01.2020 and 21.09.2019 with the OP’s representative on their registered email ID i.e.

2. Notice was issued to the OP through email, which was received with the report ‘message sent’ but none has appeared on behalf of the OP, thus, due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 01.08.2020.

3. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

During the arguments the complainant has placed on record his account statement which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’ for the adjudication of the complaint in a proper and fair manner.

4. We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on file, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in his affidavit Annexure C-A contended that an amount of Rs.14,250/- was paid by him on 04.01.2019 to OP’s for availing their travel package services by becoming the member of OPs travel scheme, namely, Forb Club FTK Leisure Membership Agreement vide membership ID: FTK-552653. It is contended that three postdated cheque were also delivered to the Ops while making the payment of Rs.14,250/- to it; so as to initiate the ECS facility in order to deduct the required amount from his account. It is contended that the OP instead of initiating the ECS facility, got encashed his two cheques out of three cheques and after the non clearance of the 3^rd cheque, a penalty amounting to Rs.3,000/- was imposed upon him. It is contended that several emails were sent by him as mentioned in para no.9 of the complaint to waive off the penalty but neither the penalty was waive off by the OP nor the amount as paid by him was refunded to him and thus, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has been made by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6. The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7. Evidently, as per account statement of the complainant, which are available on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’, a sum of Rs.14,250/- was debited from his account on 04.01.2019 and further, an amount of Rs.3,366/- and Rs.1,683/- was debited from his account on 15.02.2019 and 06.03.2019 respectively. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, three cheques were given by him to OP for initiation of ECS facility in order to make the deduction from his account automatically but the OP instead of initiating the ECS got encashed the cheques; thus, the levying of fine upon the complainant on account of default in the payment of installment was neither fair nor justified. As per email dated 01.01.2020 sent by OP to complainant, a sum of Rs.19,500/- has been mentioned to have been charged from the complainant. The complainant was never informed qua the non clearance of the 3^rd cheque, which had allegedly got bounced in the month of April 2019. We find e-mail correspondence between the complainant and the OP on several dates which are available on record as Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-2(colly) wherein the complainant had alleged his grievances but OP has neither controverted the averments of the complainant nor refunded his deposited amount. Moreover, no service of any kind in any manner qua travel package of the OP was ever availed by the complainant; thus, the act and conduct on the part of the OP in withholding the amount, in respect of which no service was ever provided by it to the complainant, is not valid, fair and justified. Therefore, the OP has been found deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8. Coming to relief, it is found that a sum of Rs.19,299/-(14250+3366+1683) was debited from the account of the complainant and accordingly, he is entitled to the refund of the same along with interest and compensation.

9. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-