ARCHANA CHAKRABORTY Vs. GREAT EASTERN APPLIANCES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit -II, on 12.8.2009, in its case No. 376/2007, wherein the Forum below has dismissed the complaint on contest without any cost.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the Forum below were that the OP -1 is a dealer of refrigerators, televisions, washing machines, air conditioner, ect of different companies and the OP -2 is a private financial institution operating in a financial sector deals with sanctioning personal and various loan to the private parties. OP -1 published an advertisement in the Anandabazar Patrika, dated 10.8.2007 offering a 'Great Eastern cost to cost offer' on the eve of 60 years of Independence on the various items like refrigerator, colour television, washing machine etc. to the public at large. In the said advertisement it was offered that materials could be purchased with the aid of 0% finance scheme from the OP -2 -Citi Financial Services. In the said advertisement there was no mentioning of 'conditions apply'. So the Complainant on 14.8.2007 along with her husband visited the showroom of the OP -1 and booked a Godrej Refrigerator and the price of which was of Rs. 11,500. The Complainant then filled in the form of 0% financing scheme of the OP -2 and also submitted address proof voter ID card, Ration Card, Income Tax Return, two photographs and signed in the declaration of the OP -2. She also submitted 8 post -dated A/c payee cheques drawing in favour of the OP -2 totalling a sum of Rs. 7,652 and paid down payment of Rs. 4,628 in cash. The OP -1 thereafter issued a money receipt dated 14.8.2007 bearing money receipt No. KG/CMR/0779/07 -08 showing that 'received with thanks from the Citi Financial Services being cash received against A/c Archana Chakraborty/GFF 26C (K. Green) Rs.11,500 (V -800).' The OP -1 also issued a challan in favour of the Complainant for supplying the Godrej Refrigerator at the residence of the Complainant and assured that the said refrigerator, so purchased from Great Eastern at Cost to Cost offer scheme would be delivered free of cost within two days. But till 23.8.2007 the OP -1 did not deliver the purchased product to the residence of the Complainant and on the said date the Complainant received a phone call from the OP -2 asking certain data, which the Complainant supplied on the same date through telephone. Again on the same date the Complainant was informed over her mobile phone by the OP -2 that the said offer could not be availed of by the Complainant as her husband is in legal profession and father -in -law is a retired police officer and the said scheme is not applicable for those persons or their family members and the Complainant was advised to collect the down payment amount from the show room of the OP -1. Having heard the same the Complainant felt insulted and requested the OP -2 to convey their decision in writing but the OP -2 failed to convey the same till the date of filing the case. Thereafter the Complainant surrendered the declaration of finance scheme of the OP -2. The further allegation of the Complainant was that the OP -2 being a foreign multinational financial institution conveyed the said decision, which is not only illegal, arbitrary but also discriminating people which cannot be accepted in the eye of law. Hence the Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum below for redressal of her grievance.

(3.) THE OP -1 took the plea before the Forum below that the it is to deliver the goods to the purchaser in a good condition subject to payment of consideration of money by the customer, but in the instant case, the Complainant failed and neglected to pay the consideration amount to the OP -1 towards purchasing of the refrigerator in question and filed the case with mala fide intention. The OP -1 has not received any payment from the Complainant directly, but received the part payment from the OP -2 on 14.8.2007. The Complainant did not make any specific allegation against the OP -1 and no relief has been sought for from it and even no agreement was made by and between the Complainant and the OP -1. As there was no deficiency in service on behalf of the OP -1, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.