DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
Wednesday, 15th October 2008
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 58 / 2008
G.B. Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Chinna Sidda Reddy,
aged about 40 years, Hindu, Kapu, Residing at D.No. 3/14,
Chinthakommadinne village, Post and Mandal,
Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) City Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,
3, L.S.C., Pushapavihar, New Delhi – 110062.
2) The Local Manager, City Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,
C/o Durga Auto Mobiles, Almaspet, Kadapa. ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 14-10-2008 in the presence of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased one Hero Honda Motorcycle on 4-12-2004 for Rs. 20,000/- as down payment and balance amount of Rs. 27,000/- was financed by the respondent at Kadapa through R2. The respondent calculated interest as Rs. 31,648/-. It had to be paid in monthly installments at Rs. 1,376/- p.m but the 2nd respondent took 23 post dated cheques in the name of R1. Thus the complainant cleared the payments by way of cheques. In the month of December 2005, one cheque was returned as the R1 had corrected instead of the amount of Rs. 1,376/-. Due to it the Andhra Bank, Kadapa had returned the cheque for that reason. It was not returned as unpaid because in the S.B. account of the complainant at Andhra Bank, kadapa, there was an amount of Rs. 2,004/-. Therefore, the complainant had to pay only one cheque for Rs. 1,376/- on account of return of the cheque to R1. But the complainant received a notice from R1 on 19-1-2007 that the complainant had to pay Rs. 3,692/- as due and proceed against the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant sent a reply, but the respondent was silent without giving any no due certificate. On 7-11-2007 the complainant got issued a notice and the same was received by the respondent on 22-11-2007. But there was no reply. Thus the complaint was filed claiming Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and issue no due certificate and for costs.
3. The respondent filed a counter that the complainant was not a consumer and there was no cause of action and suppressed the material facts. There was no prima-facie case to the complainant. It was not correct that the complainant was financed a sum of Rs. 27,000/- by the respondents. But the complainant applied for a personal loan of Rs. 27,690/- and the same was granted. A net amount of Rs. 26,314/- was disbursed on 8-12-2004 under loan agreement No. 4690376 after deducting one advance equated monthly installment i.e. Rs. 1,376/-. The interest charged was 9.65% p.a. The loan had to be repaid in 24 equal monthly installments at Rs. 1,376/- p.m The complainant issued 23 post dated cheques in December 2005. One cheque was returned on the ground that the respondent corrected cheque. There was no change or correction or alteration in the cheque issued by the complainant. The contents of the notice was correct. By 22-7-2008 the due amount was Rs. 1,596/-. The cheque issued in the month of December 2005 was returned dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds. As the total amount was not paid, No due certificate was issued. It was not correct that all the installments were cleared in December 2005. The respondents sent a reply dt. 4-2-2008 to the notice issued by the complainant on 7-11-2007. The other averments in the complaint are denied. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with cots.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B3 were marked.
6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant purchased one Hero Honda Motorcycle with the finance of Rs. 27,000/- arranged by R2 at Kadapa on 4-12-2004 together with Rs. 20,000/- as down payment paid by the complainant. The loan amount had to be repaid with monthly installments at Rs. 1,376/- p.m in 24 equal monthly installments. The complainant issued 23 post dated cheques to the R2 in the name of the first respondent. In December 2005, only one cheque was returned by Andhra Bank, Kadapa to the first respondent that the cheque was corrected. But the respondents contended that the cheque was returned on the ground of insufficient funds in the S.B. Account of the complainant in December 2005. The complainant filed a Xerox copy of account statement issued by Andhra Bank for the period from 1-12-2005 to 12-1-2006 under Ex. A1. In Ex. A1 it was mentioned at dt. 14-12-2005 that the cheque No. 0078473 was returned and the bank claimed return charges of Rs. 22/-. There was no any transaction in the S.B. Account of the complainant in between 1-12-2005 to14-12-2005. There was balance of Rs. 2,004/- in the S.B. Account of the complainant. So there was no scope of returning the cheque on the ground of insufficient funds. The respondent No.1 corrected the cheque issued by the complainant for Rs. 1,376/- without any authority. The cheque had to be corrected by the account holder itself. As the cheque was corrected by the respondent No.1 it was returned by the Andhra Bank, Kadapa. As soon as the cheque was returned it was the duty of the respondents to send back the cheque to the complainant along with bank note and requesting to issue a fresh cheque for Rs. 1,376/-. Instead of it the respondents were silent and neither returned the cheque nor issued no due certificate to the complainant. The balance due amount was only Rs. 1,376/- from the complainant. In case the cheque was returned to the complainant, the complainant ought to have issued a fresh cheque for Rs. 1,376/-. The respondents did not do the same. Instead of it the respondents got issued a notice dt. 19-1-2007 that the due amount was Rs. 3,629/- and more over file criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The Xerox copy of notice was Ex. A2. The complainant sent a reply notice dt. 01-2-2007 that the due amount was only Rs. 1,376/- and was ready to pay provided the cheque which was corrected by the respondent No.1 would be returned. The office copy of the reply notice was Ex. A3. On 7-11-2007, the complainant got issued a notice requesting to issue no due certificate. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A4. The postal acknowledgments were Ex. A5.
7. The respondents filed Ex. B1 a Xerox copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement under Ex. B1. Ex. B2 was Xerox copy of statement of account belonged to the complainant. Ex. B3 was Xerox copy of reply notice. In these circumstances there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and the complainant is entitled to get no due certificate after paying Rs. 1,376/- under fresh cheque to the R2. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.
8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complainant is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) for mental agony and payable by R1 & R2 jointly and severally and issue no due certificate to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant is directed to send a fresh cheque for Rs. 1,376/- within a week from this date.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 15th October 2008
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Statement of Account issued by Andhra Bank in favour of the complainant.
Ex. A2 X/c of notice from respondents advocate to complainant, dt. 19-1-2007.
Ex. A3 X/c of reply notice from complainant’s advocate to Respondents advocate, dt. 1-2-2007.
Ex. A4 X/c of notice from complainant’s advocates to R1, dt. 7-11-2007.
Ex. A5 Two postal acknowledgements.
Exhibits marked for Respodnents : -
Ex. B1 X/c of loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement.
Ex. B2 X/c of statement of account belonged to the complainant.
Ex. B3 X/c of reply notice from respondents advocate to complainants advocate
dt. 4-2-2008
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa.
2) Sri G.S. Murthy, Advocate, Kadapa
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
