DOF.26.5.2009 DOO. 27.1.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 27th day of January 2011 CC.137/2009 A.K.Anil Kumar, P.K.House, P.O.Neerveli, Nirmalagiri. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.N.Premarajan) 1. Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Office, P.O.Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.Rajesh V Nair) Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of `5,000 as damage to the loss sustained and to return cheque leaves and the key or else to pay `10,000 by way of damage and cost of this proceedings. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant had availed a loan facility from opposite party for purchasing TATA Mini Truck. The stipulation was to repay the loan amount by equated monthly instalments of `6200 each. The complainant had regularly remitted the installments and discharged the entire liability on 6.9.08 At the time of advancing the amount the opposite party had retained one of the keys of the vehicle and 8 signed blank cheque leaves. The opposite party had undertaken to return the said key and cheque leaves on clearing the loan amount. The opposite party issued NOC after discharging the liability. But the opposite party has not returned the cheque leaves and the key. Complainant contacted the opposite party in person and over telephone for a number of time and at last the opposite party issued a letter dt. 7.3.09 with a vague intimation that the said cheque leaves were lost in transit. Since there is no reasonable explanation the complainant sent registered notice on 23.4.09 called upon to give further details and to give indemnity bond. Though it was received opposite party did not respond so far. The opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss and damage likely to be incurred by him. The conduct of the opposite party caused great mental agony, misery, inconvenience and risk and loss to the complainant. Similarly the retention of duplicate key is also not justifiable. The opposite party is bound to return the cheque leaves and the duplicate key, hence this complaint. After receiving the complaint notice was issued to both parties. But opposite party remained absent and consequently declared exparte. Subsequently opposite party filed petition to setaside the exparte order and the same allowed by the Forum and opposite party filed version contending as follows: Complainant had availed the loan facility from the opposite party and purchased TATA Mini Truck. The complainant had disbursed the entire loan amount due to the bank. The opposite party has not retained the key of the vehicle from the complianant. The additional key is with the dealer of the vehicle from whom he had purchased the vehicle. Opposite party also denied that they had undertaken to restore the additional key and cheque leaves on repayment of debt. It is not correct to say that after closing of the loan amount complainant approached the bank and the bank has not responded properly. Opposite party has not issued any letter to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the cheque collected will not be misused. After clearing the entire loan amount the bank will cancel the entire cheque leaves received from the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the bank normally the cheques will not be returned to the customer and the bank usually cancelled the cheques. The opposite party did not cause any inconvenience or agony to the complainant. The opposite party is not in the habit of keeping the additional key with them. Complainant has not explained how he sustained damage from the side of the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party to file this complaint. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of chief affidavit of complainant and Exts.A1 to A3. This is a complaint in which several attempt were made to settle the matter. There were several postings for the settlement and the matter was almost settled and once it was posted for payment of the amount and subsequently opposite party paid `5,000 by way of cheque. But the mater was not fully settled since the bond was not given and the matter finally posted for reporting full settlement. On 13.8.2010 complainant was absent and the matter was called and the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently complainant filed restoration petition and the same allowed with cost and complaint restored. Though fresh notice was issued to opposite party and received it, opposite party remained absent subsequently called absent and set exparte. There after the matter was posted for evidence. Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his side and evidence closed. Issue Nos.1 to 3 It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed loan from opposite party. At the time of taking loan complainant issued certain number of cheque leaves to opposite party. Complainant also alleged that he has entrusting duplicate key also with the opposite party at the time of availing loan. Any how or other the subject matter was settled between parties on the basis of settlement opposite party has paid ` 5,000, but the cheque leaves were not returned. Opposite party denied to give indemnity bond also. Hence the matter remained only partly settled. The complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings in the complaint. The complainant has admitted in his chief affidavit that opposite party has paid `5,000 towards the loss sustained by the complainant. But he contended that the amount is only towards loss as he has already sustained, but the opposite party is liable to return duplicate key and the cheque leaves. So ultimately the case of the complainant is only for to get the duplicate key and cheque leaves. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he has sustained any other loss apart from the loss arised from non-return of duplicate key and the cheque leaves. Complainant has also not produced any evidence to show that there is a probable consequence of the loss that may arise from the cheque leaves alleged to put in the possession of opposite party. In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that the complainant is not succeeded in proving that he has sustained the loss more than that of the amount the opposite party has paid as part of settlement. Hence we consider that `5,000 paid by the opposite party to complainant is part of settlement is a reasonable amount and hence issue No.1 to 3 are found against complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the NOC issued by OP A2 & A3.Copy of the layer notice sent to OP and AD Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
