DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 248/2018

Date of Institution: 03.08.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 08.01.2024

Judgment Passed on: 08.01.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency against OP1 for excessive charging of the amount than the bill & against OP2 for charging more than the loan amount disbursed.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant bought a Smart Phone Samsung Galaxy Model No. J7 through OP1 for Rs.15900/- and paid Rs.5120/- to OP1 in cash and requested for the loan amount from OP2 & the mobile phone was accordingly financed by OP2 for sum of Rs.15,900/- which was complete amount of mobile phone and complainant being a layman could not understand the same as he had already paid Rs.5,120/- to the OP1 and therefore financing the whole amount of Rs.15,900/- was unfair trade practice on the part of OP2 in collusion with OP1. It is further stated that the complainant otherwise had paid sum of Rs.19,247/- upto March 2018 to OP2 whereas the loan amount was only Rs.15,900/- and he has already paid Rs.5,120/- to the OP1 and therefore it is stated that OP1 has charged Rs.5,120/- without any reason & OP2 has charged Rs.3,347/- more than the loan amount and accordingly OPs be directed to refund, the above said amount with interest @18% p.a. as compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges.
3. OP1 has not appeared and was proceeded ex-parte whereas OP2 has filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous, he has not come to court with clean hands and there is no cause of action against OP2 and the same has been filed to harass the OP2.
4. On merit it is stated that complainant purchased a Smart Phone Samsung Galaxy Model No. J 7 for Rs.15900/- from OP1. The OP2 granted the loan by Loan A/c No. 401DPF38732333, the said loan was repayable in 10 regular EMIs of Rs.1,590/-, the complainant had defaulted in making the payment and as such certain interest was imposed which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant and as on date, Rs.1,183/- still stands due in the name of complainant. The complainant had also availed insurance of the mobile phone for Rs.1167/- for which 9 EMIs  were to be paid and as on date of filing the written statement, Rs.337/- is still due against the complainant, towards EMI of insurance and the total amount which is due against the complainant as on the date filing written statement is Rs.1183+337=1520/- which the complainant has not paid. It is specifically denied that OP2 has over charged and it is submitted that whatever application was filled up by the complainant the loan amount was sanctioned accordingly and loan was granted. It is specifically denied that complainant has paid any excess amount as alleged and it is prayed that complaint of the complaint be dismissed.
5. OP1 being ex-parte has not filed reply and it is a matter of record that OP2 during the pendency of proceeding has already returned Rs.4470/- to the complainant and the complainant has also received the same. Issue now therefore is only to the extent that whether any excess amount was charged by OP1 or by OP2 or whether any amount is repayable to the complainant by OP1.
6. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that he paid Rs.5,120/- to the OP1 and OP2 also financed Rs.15,900/- i.e. the total value of the product. As far as the fact of financing the product is concerned the same is not disputed. The complainant otherwise has to pay interest on the loan taken. The detail of the interest has not been placed on record so as to calculate as to much amount has been over-charged by OP2 but it is a matter of record that OP2 has already returned Rs.4,470/- to the complainant, although the defense of the OP2 was that he has not over-charged.
7. The complainant has paid the down payment of Rs.5,120/- to the OP1. It cannot be turned as deficiency on the part of OP1, as he charged the amount. The OP2 was required to finance only Rs.(15,900-5,120)=Rs.10,780/- where he financed Rs.15,900/-. Therefore the OP2 has charged Rs.5,120/- more from complainant and consequent interest on the amount. The fact that the phone was insured & complainant has to return the financed amount of insurance, is also not disputed. In all, there is some deficiency on the part of OP2 in over-financing the product & only for this reason OP2 has already returned Rs.4,470/-(appears to be incorrect written as in the passbook the amount is Rs.4,770/-) to the complainant. In absence of specific calculation by the complainant, it cannot be ascertained as to what exact amount was over-charged by OP2. (The burden of proof was on the complainant, which he has not discharged). Even the amount of Rs.4,770 was returned by OP2 on 01.10.2019 (as per passbook) which fact has not been stated by the complainant in evidence, which was filed on 22.07.2022.
8. Therefore although there appears to be some delay in returning the amount by OP2, yet the complainant is equally at fault is not informing the fact to the Commission & even exact calculation has not been filed so as to explain the deficiency. Accordingly the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has not been able to prove any specific deficiency on the part of the OP2. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of OP1 & OP2 & therefore complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to both the Parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on 08.01.2024.

File be consigned to Record Room.