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

AI Generated Image Used For Representational Purpose Only

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 met with assurances of delivery or a refund, he told the commission.

Meanwhile, the financial obligation had already begun. An EMI of Rs 4,204 was deducted from his bank account on April 3, 2024, and the deductions allegedly continued despite the product remaining undelivered. With neither the handset nor a refund forthcoming, he approached the consumer commission, accusing the retailer of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.The retailer disputed the allegations, maintaining that the customer had physically received the phone on the day of purchase.

It argued that the invoice and receipt were generated only after the finance company confirmed the payment. The store also sought to distance itself from the loan arrangement, stating that the finance company had independently sanctioned the loan after assessing the customer's eligibility.

In its defence, the retailer alleged that the complainant was part of a larger arrangement in which loans were obtained to purchase electronic goods that were subsequently handed over to another person for resale.

It argued that the allegations warranted a police investigation.The commission, however, found that the retailer had not backed these claims with sufficient evidence. It noted that no FIR, chargesheet or judicial order had been submitted to establish the complainant's alleged involvement in any criminal conspiracy.

More importantly, the retailer could not produce documentary proof of delivery. The commission pointed out that there was no stock register entry, gate pass or signed acknowledgement identifying the handset allegedly handed over to the customer. The absence of such basic records weakened the retailer's claim that the transaction had been completed, the commission observed. It also flagged the store's failure to take appropriate steps to resolve the consumer's complaint.

Holding the retailer liable, the commission ordered it to pay a total of Rs 1,14,698 to the complainant, apart from ensuring that his loan account was fully closed.