Hyderabad man gets Rs 1.14L after EMIs ran for undelivered phone

Hyderabad: A consumer received Rs 1.14 lakh compensation after an electronic retailer was held responsible for allegedly taking his paid monthly instalments without delivering the mobile phone.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the retailer to refund Rs 74,698 for the phone, pay an additional Rs 30,000 for causing mental agony and harassment, and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs. The retailer was also directed to ensure the consumer’s loan account is permanently terminated.

Dispute from 2024

The incident occurred in March 2024, when the complainant, a 34-year-old man, approached the retailer to purchase a mobile phone via the zero-interest EMI (equated monthly instalment) scheme.

He was reportedly told that the phone would be available for collection after the finance company approved the transaction and released the payment. He submitted the required documents and was subsequently asked for a one-time password (OTP) by the store executive to process the purchase and dispatch the product.

No phone, yet EMIs persisted

However, the man claimed he never received the phone. He was repeatedly assured of a delivery or a refund when he tried to obtain the phone.

The issue worsened when his EMI payments began despite having no phone in hand. On April 3, 2024, the first EMI of Rs 4,204 was deducted from his bank account. The following instalments continued even as the phone remained undelivered, the 34-year-old told the commission.

As the payments continued and the retailer allegedly failed to refund or deliver the phone, he approached the consumer commission, accusing the retailer of negligence, unfair trade practices, and substandard service.

Retailer claims larger criminal conspiracy plot

The retailer denied the customer’s accusations and said he physically received the phone the day he arrived at the store to purchase. It was only after the finance company approved the payment that the invoice and receipt were generated, the retailer argued.

Distancing itself from the EMI payments, it said the finance company independently sanctioned the loan payments after verifying the customer’s eligibility.

The retailer said the allegations were part of a broader scheme where loans were obtained for electronics that were later resold to another individual. The claims called for a police investigation, the retailer said.

The commission said no evidence supported the allegations, noting that no first information report (FIR), judicial order, or chargesheet was recorded to substantiate the complainant’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy.

Further, the retailer failed to produce written proof of the phone’s delivery, with the commission observing that no stock register entry, signed receipt, ot gate pass showed the handset was given to the customer.

The commission said this lack of essential proof undermined the retailer’s argument and showed the store’s failure to take appropriate action to resolve the complaint.

Thus, the retailer was held liable and directed to pay Rs 1,14,698 to the complainant.

Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.