Other1 min read

Hyderabad man pays EMI but gets no phone, gets Rs 1.14 lakh after consumer court order

By · Via Times of India · Published by Everything Blog

In short

The customer initiated the purchase in March 2024 under a zero-interest financing arrangement, but monthly deductions of Rs 4,204 commenced without the device ever being delivered. Although the merchant alleged the customer took physical delivery and engaged in a fraudulent resale scheme, it failed to produce an FIR or judicial order to support the claim. The consumer commission ruled in the complainant's favor after finding no gate pass, stock register entry, or signed acknowledgment proving the handset was handed over.

Key points

  • Electronics retailers must maintain verifiable documentary proof of delivery to defend ag…: Electronics retailers must maintain verifiable documentary proof of delivery to defend against non-receipt claims in consumer courts.
  • Accusing a customer of fraud requires concrete legal backing like a police FIR to be take…: Accusing a customer of fraud requires concrete legal backing like a police FIR to be taken seriously by judicial commissions.
  • Consumer commissions will enforce full loan closures alongside financial damages when fin…: Consumer commissions will enforce full loan closures alongside financial damages when financing continues for undelivered goods.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

HYDERABAD: A man who paid monthly instalments for a mobile phone that he allegedly never received has been awarded Rs 1.14 lakh by a Hyderabad consumer commission, which held an electronics retailer liable for failing to establish that the handset had been delivered. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the retailer to refund Rs 74,698, representing the cost of the phone, pay Rs 30,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and provide Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. It also ordered the retailer to ensure complete closure of the consumer's loan account.

The dispute dates back to March 2024, when the 34-year-old man approached the store to buy a mobile phone through a zero-interest EMI scheme. After submitting the required documents, he was told that the handset would be available for collection once the finance company approved the transaction and released the payment. However, the man alleged that the store executive subsequently sought an OTP from him to process the dispatch. Although he shared the OTP, the phone never reached him. His repeated attempts to obtain the handset were…

Other