ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Santanu Saha, Member

Genesis

The present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is directed against the Judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. District Commission”) in CC/168/2022, whereby the complaint was allowed in part. The Appellant has assailed the said Judgment primarily on the grounds of inadequacy of compensation, improper appreciation of facts, and absence of effective directions enabling closure of the loan transaction.

The lis originates from a consumer transaction involving purchase of a mobile handset through an allegedly “interest-free EMI” financing scheme facilitated by Respondent/O.P Nos.1 & 2 through Respondent/O.P No.3, the retail seller. The grievance of the Appellant centres around alleged discrepancies in loan accounting, non-supply of loan documentation, alleged lack of transparency in financial disclosures, unauthorized deductions and purported unfair trade practices.

Facts in Brief

The Appellant purchased an “Oppo” mobile phone on 28.01.2022 for a total consideration of Rs.15,990/- from Respondent/O.P No.3. At the time of purchase, he was offered a financing scheme through Respondent/O.P Nos.1 & 2, under which he paid Rs.5,000/- upfront and agreed to pay the balance in seven EMIs of Rs.1,599/- each.

It is an admitted position that only one instalment was successfully paid. Two subsequent instalments, tendered through cheques issued by the Appellant, were dishonoured, resulting in imposition of penalties/charges by the financing institution in accordance with banking norms.

Case of the Appellant is that no formal loan agreement or detailed documentation was furnished to him, except an online repayment schedule. Subsequently, upon examining his bank statement, the Appellant suspected that excess amounts were being debited. However, despite repeated requests, neither the applicable rate of interest nor the detailed loan account statement was supplied, thereby preventing him from understanding his exact liability.

Significantly, the Appellant expressed his readiness and willingness to liquidate the entire outstanding amount, inclusive of interest, as on 30.04.2022, subject to disclosure of a complete and intelligible statement of account.

Appellant further alleged misuse of a blank cheque provided at the time of transaction, resulting in unauthorized debit of Rs.295/- from his IDBI Bank account.

Aggrieved, the Appellant filed Complaint Case No. CC/168/2022. The Ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint directing Respondent/O.P Nos.1 & 2 to (i) refund Rs.295/-, (ii) pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, (iii) pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost, and (iv) provide a complete statement of account.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of relief and other findings, the present Appeal has been preferred.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment primarily on the following grounds:

It is contended that the Ld. District Commission erred in exonerating Respondent/O.P No.3 despite clear evidence of unfair trade practice, particularly reflected in the tax invoice which allegedly shows the entire amount of Rs.15,990/- as financed amount, ignoring the upfront payment of Rs.5,000/-.

The Appellant asserts that his willingness to settle the account by 30.04.2022 demonstrates bona fides, and that the failure of the Respondents to provide requisite details frustrated such settlement, thereby aggravating the loss and mental agony.

It is further urged that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate considering the mental agony and financial loss suffered. Reliance is placed on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004), wherein it was held that compensation must be just, reasonable and commensurate with the injury suffered.

Counsel submits that denial of interest and proper compensation violates the mand