Punjab

Sangrur

CC/476/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Veetraag AC and Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Garg

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    476

                                                Instituted on:      19.11.2018

                                                Decided on:       16.01.2023

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Sohan Singh, R/O H.No. A/136, Sangrur Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Veetraag AC and Electricals, (Bhullrheri Wale), Loha Bazar, Sangrur Road, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its Prop./owner Rakesh Jain.

2.             State Bank of India, Branch Benra, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager. (Notice to OP number 2 not issued).

3.             Bajaj Finance Ltd. Near Kakarwal Pull, Ramgarhia Gurudwara Road, Near Union Bank of India, Dhuri through its Manager.

4.             Bajaj Finance Ltd. 4^th Floor, Survey No.208/1/B, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India 4110014 through its M.D.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP NO.3&4         :       Shri K.S.Toor, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant purchased one Panasonic AC from OP number 1 for Rs.30,000/- and on the advice of the OP number 1 the same was got financed from OP number 3 and 4.  It is further averred that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was financed from OP number 3 which was repayable in eight monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- each. The OP number 3 deducted three instalments i.e. Rs.2530/- being the first instalment on 2.7.2018, Rs.2500/- being the second instalment on 2.8.2018 and Rs.2500/- being the third instalment on 3.9.2018.  The grievance of the complainant is that thereafter OP number 3 deducted Rs.1682/- only as fourth instalment against the amount of Rs.2500/- and when he approached the OP number 3 it was told that the   complainant has to pay the instalment of Rs.1682/- with interest each, which is said to be illegal one.  Though the complainant requested the OP number 3 to recover the amount according to agreement, but of no avail.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to recover instalments @ Rs.2500/- per month from November, 2018 till completion of balance amount and to refund the amount of Rs.1682/- alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant visited OP number 1 to purchase the air conditioner in question, but the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash to the OP number 1 and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by OP number 3 and thereafter OP number 1 has to do nothing with the loan amount.  Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3 and 4 it is admitted that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.20,000/- which was repayable in eight instalments of Rs.2500/- each. Out of eight instalments the complainant paid three instalment of Rs.2500/- each in July, August, September 2018 and thereafter the complainant got converted the existing principle amount of Rs.12500/- to new loan account number X77SFP88544006 and the same was recoverable in eight instalments of Rs.1682/- each, as such, the OP number 1 recovered the amount of Rs.1682/- being the first instalment and thereafter no amount was paid by the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and affidavit in evidence and closed thereafter.

5.             On the other hand, the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed thereafter. OP number 3 and 4 has produced copy of statement Ex.OP3&4/1 and closed evidence.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the learned counsel for the parties along with supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant purchased one Panasonic AC from OP number 1 for Rs.30,000/- and on the advice of the OP number 1 the amount of Rs.20,000/- was financed from OP number 3 which was repayable in eight instalments of Rs.2500/- each as is evident from the copy of statement issued by bank Ex.C-3. The OP number 3 deducted three instalments i.e. Rs.2530/- being the first instalment on 2.7.2018, Rs.2500/- being the second instalment on 2.8.2018 and Rs.2500/- being the third instalment on 3.9.2018.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that thereafter OP number 3 deducted Rs.1682/- only as fourth instalment against the amount of Rs.2500/- and when he approached the OP number 3 it was told that the   complainant has to pay the instalment of Rs.1682/- each, which is said to be illegal one. All the above allegations of the complainant have been duly supported by the self declaration of the complainant which is on record as Ex.C-1.  Though the complainant requested OP number 3 to recover the amount according to agreement, but of no avail.  As such, the complainant has sought the recovery of instalment of Rs.2500/- each.

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has admitted that the complainant visited OP number 1 to purchase the air conditioner in question, but the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted further that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash to the OP number 1 and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by OP number 3 and thereafter OP number 1 has to do nothing with the loan amount.  Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs qua OP number 1.

9.             The learned counsel for OP number 3 and 4 has argued that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.20,000/- which was repayable in eight instalments of Rs.2500/- each. Out of eight instalments the complainant paid three instalment of Rs.2500/- each in July, August, September 2018 and thereafter the complainant got converted the existing principle amount of Rs.12500/- to new loan account number X77SFP88544006 and the same was recoverable in eight instalments of Rs.1682/- each, as such, the OP number 1 recovered the amount of Rs.1682/- being the first instalment and thereafter no amount was paid by the complainant.

10.            It is undisputed fact of the parties that the complainant availed the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and the same was repayable by the complainant in eight instalments of Rs.2500/- each. Out of eight instalments,  OP number 3 recovered three instalments of Rs.2500/- each.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 3 recovered fourth instalment of Rs.1682/- against the amount of Rs.2500/-, which has been objected by the complainant. Though the stand of the OP number 3 is that the remaining amount of Rs.12500/- was converted into another loan account on 19.9.2018 and the complainant was to pay the said amount in eight equated monthly instalment of Rs.1682/- each, but we may mention that there is no such agreement produced on record by the OP number 3 showing that the complainant entered into new/another agreement.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 3 why they did not produce on record the said agreement nor has produced any sworn affidavit of OP number 3 and 4 to support their contention raised in the written reply.  In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 and 4.

11.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 3 and 4 to recover the amount of Rs.12,500/- in five equal instalments of Rs.2500/- each and to refund the amount of Rs.1682/- so recovered from the complainant.  The OP number 3 and 4 shall provide to the complainant the revised schedule for recovery of the remaining loan amount as stated above. It is made clear that the OP number 3 and 4 shall not charge any interest or penalty from the complainant, as there is no fault proved on record on the part of the complainant. We further direct OP number 3 and 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

12.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

13.            This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 16, 2023.