This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `99,950 as compensation along with `50 debited by the bank with cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a swift car by availing loan from opposite party. The loan was disbursed as per agreement No.LA.KNR.0001261224 and by obtaining 60 signed cheques from the account NO.1658 of Indian Overseas Bank, Kannur. The complainant was very much punctual in payment of the loan amount and pre-closed the loan on 5.9.11 and at  the time of pre-closure the complainant demanded for the return of the cheque deposited but opposite party represented that the same will return by post. Despite of the closure of the loan, the opposite party represented  one post dated cheque of complainant ie. Cheque dated 11.10.11 at IOB, Talap branch bounced and bankers debited `50 from the account of the complainant. The opposite party is still in possession of 19 post dated cheqes of the complainant. The act of opposite party is scandalize and caused ill reputation of the complainant before bankers. The act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and due to the above incident the complainant sustained both mental and financial loss. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party they neither give any importance to the incident nor made any reply. Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version and thereafter they remains absent and hence he was called absent and set exparte.

          The opposite party admits that the complainant had availed a car loan from the opposite party and also admits that the complainant was punctual in payment of the loan. But it is not correct that the opposite party represented that the post dated cheques will be sent to the complainant by post. The bank has no such procedure of return of cheques. The complainant has issued post dated cheques infavour of the bank which will automatically send to his account in every month and each cheque will go to his account on 5^th of every month. The complainant   can issue stop payment to the cheque dt 5.10.11,If he forecloses the loan on 23.9.11. The reason for bouncing of the cheque was due to the fact that when he forecloses the loan account the next EMI falling due on 5.10.11 was already sent to his account for encashing the same. If he foreclosures the loan after 5^th September and before 18^th September, the cheque of next EMI will not sent to his account. In this case he close the loan on 23.9.11 by the time his next EMI cheque was sent for collection. The advice was given by the bank to issue stop memo foreseeing the next EMI cheque. The cheque which was bounced was not of negligence of the bank and the bank was not claimed any amount after the closing of the loan from the complainant. No amount was collected from the account of the bank and hence there is no unfair practice on the part of the bank. It is incorrect to say that the complaint has suffered a loss of `99,950 and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the side of opposite parties?

2.    Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in

       the complaint?

3.   Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A3 and X1.

Issue No.1 to 3

          The case of the complaint is that even though he had foreclosed the car loan availed by him from opposite party’s bank  on 5.9.11 the opposite party had presented the cheque dt.11.10.11 drawn on Indian  Overseas Bank, Talap, branch towards EMI of pre-closed loan and the bank had dishonoured the cheque and collected `50 towards  charge. In order to prove his case he has produced lawyer notice, postal acknowledgment card, loan closure receipt and summoned statement of account of Indian Overseas Bank. The opposite party was not turned up before the Forum to substantiate their contentions. The opposite party admits that a cheque was bounced by Indian Overseas Bank which was presented after the loan closure. As per Ext.A3 the loan was foreclosed on 23.9.11. But as per Ext.X1, it is seen `50 was debited and opposite party admits that a cheque was returned which was presented for realization of EMI after closure of the loan account. The opposite party has stated some reasons for bouncing the cheque, but they have not turned before the Forum to substantiate their contention. More over there is no contra evidence before us. Above all opposite party admits that a cheque was bounced for closure of the loan. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. As per Ext.X1 the Indian Overseas Bank has credited `50 towards the charge with respect to the above cheque. So Opposite party is liable to give the above said amount of `50. The complainant contended that he has sustained both mental and financial difficulties. But he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention. The complainant further contended that there are 19 cheques are with the opposite party and they have not return the same. But according to the opposite party they will not returned the cheques collected by them from the consumers. This version of opposite party cannot be accepted since the liability of the complainant was cleared by him and hence they have no locust standi to keep the cheques collected from the complainant. They are liable to return the cheques to the complainant. So in this aspects also there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So opposite party is liable to compensate the complaint in this aspect also. So we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to return the balance cheques also. So the opposite party is liable to pay `5000 as compensation and `1000 as cost of these proceedings which will meet the ends of justice.The opposite party is also liable to pay `50  to the complainant along  with the balance cheques and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the balance cheques and `50 (Rupees Fifty only) along with `5000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and `1000(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of these proceedings within 30 days of receipt of this order. If the opposite party is not returning the cheque after the expiry of 30 days, they have to compensate complainant, by paying `10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) more as compensation apart from the above stated amount. The complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                              Sd/-                     Sd/-

                        President                     Member    

APPENDIX                              

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Copy of lawyer notice sent to Ops

A2. Acknowledgement cards

A3.Pay-in-slip issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Exhibits for the court

X1.Extract of ledger relating to SB account of complainant

 Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.