Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/93/2018

Jogendra Kumar Mishra S/O- Late Indradeo Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehenra Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA

****************

CONSUMER CASE NO.93/2018

Jogendra Kumar Mishra,

S/o- Late indradeo Mishra,

Ro: Qr. No. MQ-96, Hilltop Colony, Po-Rampur colliery,  

Ps: Brajrajnagar, Dist.- Jharsuguda, Odisha………….…….…………Complainant.

                                                 

Versus

 

1. Mahindra Electronics,

At-Main road, Brajrajnagar,Po/Ps-Brajrajnagar,

Dist- Jharsuguda.

 

2. M.M Electronics,

At-Beheramal, Po-Industrial Estate

Dist- Jharsuguda.

 

3. Bajaj Finance,

At- Lamtibahal, infront of P.N.B,

Po- Lamtibahal, Ps- Brajrajnagar,

Dist- Jharsuguda………………………………..…….…....……..Opp. Parties

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                Self.

For the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2                 Sri T.K.Singh, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.3                         None(Ex-parte).

 

Present:-     1. Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President.

                     2. Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member.

 

Date of hearing- 16.08.2022                                        Date of order- 19.09.2022

 

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President : - This is the case of complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant is that on dt. 05.10.2017 the complainant purchased one Godrej Refrigerator, one Godrej Micro oven and one mobile hand set from the O.P.No.1/Mahindra Electronics in total cost of Rs.43,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.12,584/- only as advance to the O.p.No.1 and the rest balance of Rs.30,916/- is to be paid by the complainant to the O.P.No.3/ Bajaj Finance. The complainant has paid monthly installment of Rs.3098/-only for mobile hand set and Micro oven, Rs.1917/- only for Godrej refrigerator. Total Rs.5015/- only as installment paid by the complainant for a period of 8(eight) month to the O.PNo.3/ Bajaj Finance. The complainant has paid Rs.40,120/- to the O.P.No.3/ Bajaj Finance and Rs.12,584/- only to the O.P.No.1/ Mahindra Electronics as advance. As a result the complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs. 11,788/- .

The complainant after finding the excess amount paid by him rushed to the office of O.P.No.3/Bajaj Finance and contacted the O.P but both the O.P.No.1 & 3 denied to refund the excess amount of Rs.11,788/- as paid by the complainant.  Both party have committed deficiency in service.

2. The case of the O.P.No.1 and 2 is that they admitted in their version that the complainant has purchased the products from him.  They also admitted that an amount of Rs.12,584/- only has been paid by the complainant and rest amount of Rs.30,916/- only has been paid by the O.P.No.3.

The O.p.No.1 & 2 stated that there was a agreement between the O.p.No.3 and the complainant and they were not aware of it.  It is submitted by the O.P.No.1 and 2 that they were dealing with goods and they have supplied product in good and working condition.  They have no direct link with the complainant for collection of monthly installment.  It is also stated by the O.p.No.1 & 2 that if any excess amount collected as installment then it should by by the O.P.No.3 and not by O.P.No.1 and 2.  The O.Ps. are not deficiency in service in their service.

The O.P.No.3 did not appear and set ex-parte.

3. Perused the documents filed by the parties and following issues are framed

Issues:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?
2. What relief the complainant is entitled to get ?

Issue no. 1:- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties?

            From the invoices issued by O.P.No.1 & 2 it reveals that the cost of Godrej refrigerator is Rs.23,000/-only, cost of Godrej micro oven is Rs.11,000/- and the cost of Oppo mobile hand set is Rs.9,500/- only .  In this way the O.P.No.1 & 2 have delivered the products to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 43,500/-.  It is the admission of the O.P.No.1 & 2 that Rs.12,584/- only has been received from the complainant. So the balance amount of Rs.30,916/- only is the balance amount made by the O.P.No.3 and on the introduction of the O.P.No.1 & 2 the products have been delivered to the complainant.

From the account statement of the complainant it reveals that for 8 months @ Rs.5015/- every month again the O.P.No.3 has taken from the complainant totaling Rs.40,120/- only.  So an excess amount of Rs.9206/-only had been taken by the O.p.No.3.

                                                                                                     

The O.P.No.3 neither appeared nor filed the loan agreement and this fact is within the knowledge of the O.P.No.1 & 2.  On the introduction of O.P.No.1 & 2, the O.P.No.3 has come to the picture and the O.P.No.1 & 2 now deny their liability.  From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the O.P.No.1,2 and 3 in a collusive way running business and taking excess amount from the customer.

Non-submission of loan documents, further clear the total scenario of the case. 

Accordingly as the O.Ps. in a collusive way collected Rs.9,206/- only as excess amount which amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.

The issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.2:- What relief the complainant is entitled to get ?

            From the supra discussion it is clear that the complainant is entitled for relief. Accordingly it is ordered.

ORDER

            The complaint petition is allowed partly against O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 and ex-parte against O.P.No.3.  The O.Ps. are directed jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.9,206/-( Rupees nine thousand two hundred six) only along with 7% interest per annum with effect from 21.08.2019 from the date of filing within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order to the complainant, if fails the O.ps will liable to carry 12% interest per annum till realization. The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- only towards compensation and  harassment of the complainant along pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- only towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 19^th day of September’ 2022 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to serve copies of the order to the parties free of costs as per rule.

 I Agree           

1. Agrawal, Member                          J.Mishra, President.          

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                  J.Mishra, President.