DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.127 OF 2017
- Manoj Kumar Singh(52 Yrs.),
S/O: Brajraj Prasad Singh.
- Sanju Kumari ( 50 Yrs,.),
W/O: Manoj Kumar Singh,
At: Both are the resident of Babua bagicha,Cox Colony,
PO; Industrial ERstate,
PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha……………….…….…………Complainants.
Versus
- Branch Manager,
SREI Equipments Finance Ltd.,
At: Ainthapali Chowk,PO/PS: Ainthapali,
Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.
- SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.,
Plot No. Y-A, Block- EP,sector-5,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091..…....…….…..…….……..Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant D.K.Patel, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Parties B.Panda, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 01.10.2018
Present
1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.
2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).
Shri Sundarlal Behera, President: - Undisputed facts of this case are that, the complainant namely Manoj kumar Singh being an unemployed man in order to maintain his livelihood availed loan facilities from the O.Ps. of Rs.26,14,766/- only for purchased of two nos. of Hydra Crane to be repaid within 35 nos. of months in 3 slab i.e. Rs.80,000/-, Rs.65,000/- and Rs.53,000/- only for 12 months, 12 months and 11 months respectively. During the course of repayment of the installment 3 nos. of cheques dtd. 05.08.2013 of 53,000/-, dtd.05.04.2013 of Rs.65,000/- and dtd.05.11.2012 of Rs.65,000/- got bounced due to some unavoidable circumstances. Against the 3 nos. of bounced cheques, complainant Manoj Kumar Singh and his wife Sanju Kumari (Both are having joint account) paid Rs.53,000/-, Rs.65,000/- and Rs.65,000/- vide Money Receipt dtd.31.10.2013, dtd.28.12.2012 and dtd.26.11.2012 respectively. As on dtd. 31.10.2013 the amount involved in 3 nos. of bounced cheque were remitted to the O.Ps. finance company. Due to cheque bounce the O.Ps. finance company has instituted 4 nos. of complaint case U/s-138/ 141 of NI Act in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and subsequently those were withdrawn by the O.Ps. During the continuance of complaint case, on the strength of bailable warrant both the complainants surrendered before the Hon’ble CMM Court,Kolkata and released on bail. Negotiation in between the complainant and the O.ps. finance company to pay for settling the outstanding dues of the loan account and negotiated amount of Rs.70,000/-only had been paid by the complainant on dtd.05.01.2015 and thereafter the O.Ps. finance company issued NOC for the said Hydra Crane and closed the loan account.
The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Finance company averring that though the amount connecting to 3 nos. of bounce cheques were realized by the O.Ps. finance company on dtd. 28.12.2012, dtd. 16.10.2013 and lastly on dtd. 10.11.2013, summons as accused person were issued against the complainants to appeared before the Hon’ble CMM Court,Kolkata on dtd. 05.12.2013, dtd.08.03.2014 and dtd. 27.02.20.14 respectively and by that time the amount of the 3 nos. of bounce cheque has already been paid by them to the O.Ps. finance company. The O.Ps. finance company submit that the complainants are not consumer, complaint lack territorial jurisdiction also is not having any cause of action, as on settlement of their claim on negotiation basis certain amount was paid and NOC against the loan account had already been issued in favour of the complainants. In this regard the allegation relating to institution of complaint case on the matter of bounce cheques the O.ps. finance company submitted that institution of complaint case U/s-138/141 of NI Act is falling within its right to meet for recovery of the bounce cheques amount and this Act cannot be fall within the ambit of deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, hearing the submission made on behalf of the parties and on close scrutiny of the documentary evidence made available by the complainants, we are of view that institution of complaint due to bounce cheque before the appropriate court cannot be constitute deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. finance company but here in this case the bounce cheques were issued on dtd. 05.08.2013, dtd.15.04.2013 and dtd. 15.11.2012 for Rs.53,000/-, Rs.65,000/-, and Rs.65,000/- were paid to the O.Ps. finance company vide Money Receipt dtd. 16.10.2013,dtd. 10.11.2013 and dtd. 28.12.2012 respectively. So it is clear that amounts involved in 3 nos. of bounce cheques were realized by the O.ps. finance company on dtd. 10.11.2013. On perusal of the summons issued by the Hon’ble CMM Court,Kolkata. It is cleared that those were issued to the complainants for their appearance on dtd.05.12.2013. It means after payment of the amount of 3 nos. of bounce cheques, last payment being on dtd. 10.11.2013, the complainants had to appear before the court after 8 days from the clearance of the cheque amounts. The O.Ps. finance company were having knowledge regarding issuance of summons by the court. It should have stopped further proceeding of the court and could have taken appropriate steps for withdrawal of the complaint case U/s-138/141 of NI Act. The O.Ps. finance company instead of taking step to stopped the criminal proceeding remained silent and inconsequence even after entire payment of the bounce cheques the complainants had to appear before the Kolkata Court on the strength of bailable warrant, incurring loss of huge amount towards train fair, boarding and lodging as well as litigation expenditures. Further court papers shows that all the complaint case have been withdrawn by the Hon’ble Court U/s-257 of Cr.PC on dtd.05.06.2014 due to amicable settlement of the dispute. Documentary evidence made it clear that after clearance i.e. after payment of the bounce cheques amount to the O.Ps. finance company took 7 months in filing withdrawal petition, this type of action on part of O.Ps. finance company cannot be appreciated. Instituting criminal complaint case against the complainants, bring them into litigation as accused persons before the CMM,Kolkata putting mental agony by forcing them to ask for bail, forcing to incurred heavy financial loss only after realization of the bounce cheques amount, definitely constitute deficiency in finance service on the part of O.Ps. finance company in respect to the complainant.
We, therefore, held the O.Ps. finance company to be guilty of deficiency in service in respect to the complainants for which the complainant deserve compensation owing to mental agony, financial loss and harassment caused by O.Ps. finance company.
Complaint is partly allowed. The O.Ps. finance company is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh) only to the complainants as compensation along with pay Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand) only as litigation costs. All aforesaid awarded amounts are to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps. finance company shall be liable for interest @ 12% per annum on aforesaid ordered amounts till its realization..
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 1st day of October’ 2018.Free copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree.
A.Nanda, Member(W) S. L. Behera, President.
Dictated and corrected by me
S. L. Behera, President
