DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 242 of 15.6.2016

                                      Decided on:     19.1.2021

Avtar Singh s/o Ajmer Singh @ Kaka Singh aged about 34 years resident of village Main, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Goel Enterprises, through its Proprietor/partner Anish Goel, Bhadson Road, near HDFC Bank, Opposite Doctor Colony, Patiala.
2. Bajaj Finserv (Finance) through its Manager, Head Office near Gurudwara Sh.Dukhniwaran Sahib, S.C.F.12-13, 2^nd Floor, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Avtar Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.S.S.Sahni, counsel for OP No.1

                                      Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.                                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Avtar Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Goel Enterprises and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Carrier one ton Split AC (Superia 365 Hot & Cold) for an amount of Rs.42,000/- from OP No.1 on 1.5.2016 on credit. It is averred that at the time of purchase of the said AC, it was assured by OP No.1 that he is authorized to sanction loan on behalf of Bajaj Finance and took cancelled cheque No.820396 from the complainant. He also took signatures on some documents and also obtained copy of driving licence from the complainant for the said purpose. The complainant got installed the AC on 3.5.2016.
3. It is averred that from the date of installation of AC, it was not working properly. The complainant lodged various complaint to OP No.1 and also to Carrier Service Helpline regarding manufacturing defect in the AC.He also lodged complaint with the police also as OP No.1 fraudulently sold him old and used model of AC.
4. It is further averred that on 16.5.2016, complainant received two e-mails , whereby two consumer durable loans No.4390CD22806217 and 4390CD22806168 amounting to Rs.31500/-each in the name of complainant have been approved by  OP No.2 regarding purchase of two carrier AC make and model CAL-AC AIR CONDITIONER 18K ESTRELLA WRAC AC (5 STAR) from OP No.1, totaling Rs.63500/- and Rs.21000/- for the above said two AC’s has been paid in advance by the complainant.
5. The complainant  filed civil suit in the Court of Ms.Ramandeep Neetu, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala against the OPs regarding above said dispute. Complainant also sent representation dated 28.5.2016 to OP No.2 with the request for doing the needful but to no effect. There is thus clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs which caused mental harassment, agony, tension, humiliation and inconvenience to the complainant.
6. On this background of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to stop the two consumer durable loans No. 4390CD22806217 and 4390CD22806168 amounting to Rs.31500/-each, OP No.2 be directed to not to withdraw the amount  from the complainant’s account till the matter in dispute is not decided by the Hon’ble Court and also to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, tension, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience.
7. Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OP No.2 did not appear to contest the complaint despite service of notice and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.7.2016.
8. In the written reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious ; that the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is using the Carrier I-ton Inverter Split AC (Hot and Cold) since 3.5.2016 without any problem and has filed the present complaint on frivolous allegations; that the complainant has not paid even a single penny or any amount of installment. It is further in the preliminary objections that earlier the complainant got installed the Split AC in question at his residential house on 3.5.2016; that the complainant has already availed the alternative remedy by filing a criminal complaint to the SHO Tripuri, Patiala  and to SSP Patiala on 21.5.2016; the complainant  has also filed a civil suit vide which he sought the relief of permanent injunction, hence the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed; that the manufacturer of the Carrier Company and the authorized service center of carrier company has not been made to the present complaint; that OP No.1 is running only a retail outlet of Carrier company and is not responsible for the after sale services of any manufacturing defect.
9. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 on 30.4.2016 and selected the Split AC. Thereafter he visited the shop of OP No.1 on 1.5.2016 and told that he cannot pay any amount as down payment and want to purchase the Split AC amounting to Rs.42,000/-including its stabilizer, he put the said AC (one indoor unit, one outdoor unit and one stabilizer) in his car and took the same to his house.
10. It is further submitted that as the product was given without making the down payment, therefore, two loan cases were prepared showing outstanding amount of Rs.42000/- only which the complainant  is liable to pay and no excess amount was ever shown or demanded from the complainant. It  is further submitted that the complainant voluntarily signed the ten ECS forms of Rs.4200/-each. It is further submitted that the complainant firstly installed the Split AC in question at his residence on 3.5.2016, thereafter  he got installed the same installed at Top Floor of Yadvindera Complex, Lawyer Chamber No.526,District Courts, Patiala. If the AC was having any problem then the complainant would not have got installed the same in his chamber. It is pleaded that wrong / false complaints were made by the complainant to the Carrier Service Center/help line and with the police. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made  in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
11. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
12. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA of Sh.Anish Goel, Prop. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence.
13. OP No.1 also filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant present in person, ld. counsel for OP No.1 and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
14. The complainant has argued that he purchased one ton carrier split AC for Rs.42,000/- from OP No.1 vide bill,Ex.C1.The complainant further argued that at the time of purchase of the said AC ,OP no.1 assured that he is authorized to get loan from OP No.2 and took cancelled cheque. The complainant further argued that the said AC was installed on 3.5.2016 and is not working since then as the AC was of old model. The complainant further argued that he lodged the complaint with the police, the same is Annexure C3. The complainant further argued that on 16.5.2016, he received two e-mails from Bajaj Finance that consumer durable loan has been approved for Rs.31,500/-each in the name of complainant. The complainant further argued that as he has purchased one AC so two loans cannot be sanctioned. The complainant further argued that AC is defective one and it was not changed despite of the fact that he lodged the complaints to SHO PS Tripuri, Patiala and to SSP, Patiala. The complainant further argued that he has also filed civil suit in the court of Ld.Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala and the same is pending. The complainant further argued that it is clear cut case of cheating and it be allowed.
15. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that complainant has not paid a single penny till today and he has taken the AC on zero payment and two loans were duly sanctioned  by OP No.2. The ld. counsel further argued that as the complainant has not paid any amount of the AC in question so there is no relationship of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1 and thus the complaint be dismissed with heaviest cost. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant is a lawyer is using the AC from 3.5.2016 without paying single penny and he wants to get the AC changed after using the same nearly for five years. The ld. counsel further argued that the suit for recovery has also been filed against the complainant before Ld.civil.It is further argued that the complainant has harassed the OP as he has filed various criminal complaints. The ld. counsel further argued that two loans were approved by OP No.2 for Rs.42000/- and these loans were cancelled by OP No.2. The ld. counsel further argued that even the split AC was firstly installed by the complainant at his house and thereafter in his chamber situated at Top Floor of Yadavindra Complex, Lawyer Chamber No.526, District Courts, Patiala. The ld. counsel further argued that false allegations have been leveled against the OP and without paying the single penny the complainant is enjoying the facility of split AC. The ld. counsel further argued that OP is continuously harassed by the complainant by filing complaints. As there is no relationship of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1 so the complaint be dismissed.
16. To prove this case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and documents Exs.C1 to C14. Ex.C1 is a receipt of AC dated 1.5.2016 in the name of Avtar Singh Dhaliwal for Rs.42,000/-.Ex.C2 is copy of blank cheque. It is not signed by anybody.Ex.C3 is the complaint filed by the complainant  with the SHO P.S.Tripuri, Patiala against OP No.1,Ex.C3A is copy of postal receipt,Ex.C4 is sanctioning of loan of Rs.31500/- by Bajaj Finance, Ex.C5 is 2^nd sanction of loan for Rs.31500/-,Ex.C6 another complaint filed by the complainant with SHO PS Tripuri for registration of compliant against the OPs,Ex.C7 is another complaint filed with SSP Patiala for registration of complaint against OPs,Exs.C8 and C9 copies of postal receipts,Ex.C10 is copy of suit for permanent injunction filed by Avtar Singh against OPs,Ex.C11 is the application sent to OP No.2 for taking action against OP No.1,Ex.C12 is copy of postal receipt,Ex.C13 is e-mail by Bajaj Finance to Avtar Singh stating that loan account No.4390CD22806217 has been cancelled in our system,Ex.C14 is the cancellation of 2^nd loan in favour  of the complainant.
17. On behalf of OP No.1,Sh.Anish Goel, has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written stqtement,Ex.OP1 is copy of retail invoice in the name of Amarjit Kaur for the purchase of T.V., Ex.OP2 is the retail invoice in the name of Jagjit Singh for the purchase of mobile, Ex.OP3 is the retail invoice in the name of Nachatar Singh for the purchases of LED,Exs.OP4 and OP5 are copies of statements  of account,Exs.OP6 and OP7 are the photographs of Career AC installed in the lawyer chamber of the complainant Avtar Singh as per the OP and the name of Career is  clearly visible.Ex.OP8 is copy of civil suit filed by OP No.1 against Avtar Singh for recovery of Rs.52920/-,Ex.OP9 is copy of order of Ld. Civil Judge Junir Division, Patiala dated 25.7.2017, Ex.OP10 is copy of statement of Avtar Singh before Ld.Civil Judge,Junir division, Patiala.
18. It is an admitted fact that Avtar Singh complainant has purchased one split AC of Carrier company from OP No.1 vide receipt,Ex.C1. It is also admitted fact that this AC was purchased on ‘zero’ down payment meaning that “no amount was paid by Avtar Singh at the time of purchase of the AC”.The OP No.2 has sanctioned two loans for Rs.42,000/-in favour  of Sh.Avtar Singh. The sanction letters are Exs.C4 and C5. Numerous complaints have been filed by Sh.Avtar Singh against the OPs to SHO P.S.Tripuri, Patiala and SSP Patiala and all the copies are on the file. A suit for recovery of Rs.52920/- was also filed by the OP No.1 against Sh.Avtar Singh which is pending before the Ld. Civil Court, Senior Division, Patiala.Vide e-mails,Exs.C13 and C14 both the loans of Rs.31500/- each which were sanctioned in favour  of the complainant were cancelled by M/s Bajaj Finance and it is clearly mentioned in both the documents that the loans of the complainant have been cancelled in their system. No reasons have been mentioned for cancellation of the loans.
19. So now it is to be seen as to whether ther is any relationship of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1.
20. Admittedly AC was purchased by making ‘zero’ payment of Rs.42,000/- and in lieu of this two loans were financed by M/s Bajaj Finance , which included interest but both the loans were cancelled by Bajaj Finance.
21. The complainant who has purchased the AC on 1.5.2016 and now nearly 5 years have been elapsed he has not paid a single penny towards the payment of AC and as already stated above, loan were cancelled by OP No.2 so when he has not paid any amount, there is no relationship of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1,so this complaint is not liable on this ground.
22. The contention of the complainant is that the AC was not working is rebutted by the ld. counsel for OP No.1 as he has clearly stated that firstly the AC was installed at the house of the complainant and lateron it was installed by the technician of OP No.1 in the lawyer chamber of the complainant and photographs in this regard are Exs.OP6 and OP7. In the photograph,Ex.OP7 name of Carrier is clearly visible.So it is clearly that the AC was also installed in the chamber of lawyer who is Ld.Advocate.
23. Admittedly M/s Goel Enterprises had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.52920/- against the complainant which is pending in the court of Ld.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala.The complainant also filed suit for permanent injunction which was withdrawn by him.
24. So due to our above discussion, the complainant has purchased the AC in dispute without paying a single penny to OP No.1 and till now admittedly no amount towards the cost of AC is paid. The loans sanctioned in favour of the complainant by OP No.2 have already been cancelled. As such there is no relationship of consumer between the complainant and OP No.1 due to the fact that no amount of AC was ever paid by the complainant till today to OP No.1 and there is no evidence on the file produced by the complainant of some expert that AC in question was having some defect.
25. So due to our above discussion there is no force in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.         

ANNOUNCED

DATED:19.1.2021       

                                   Y.S.Matta                            Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President