The instant case was started on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of Consumer protection act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 45/17 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed form the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant (Bijoy Roy) is a service holder and he is residing within the jurisdiction of this forum.

 In the month of June, 2010 the complainant desired to purchase a motor bike for his own affair from Hero Honda Motors Ltd. at Raiganj. At that time he came to know that the value of Hero Honda Glamour Motor Cycle was Rs. 52765/-. At that time the total amount was not available to him and the complainant expressed his incapacity to them. At that time the concerned authority of Motor Cycle Showroom told him that the agent of O. P. No. 1 is available at their showroom. The O. P. No. 1 made arrangement to finance the motorcycle. Then the complainant/ petitioner contacted to the Branch Office of O .P. No.1 which is situated at Malda and   Head Office is at Calcutta.

At that time O. P. No. 1 stated to complainant that you shall have to deposit 36 No. of Cheque of his Bank account. They would sanction maximum amount of Rs.32000/-. The complainant is an account holder of O.P.No.3 bearing Account No.91813002126737. There after putting the complainant’s signature in the said cheques. The complainant deposited 36 No. cheques before O.P.No.1. There after the complainant received the motor cycle. It was duly registered in his name. After verification of all documents O.P.No.1 sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 32000/-. The tenure of repayment of loan was 36 months and monthly EMI was Rs.1243/- and the commencement of his EMI was started from 5/8/2010.

From the evidence it is found that after clearing the loan amount, the complainant demanded NOC from O.P.No.1 and 2. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 turned down complainant’s request putting several excuses.  On 8/9/2016 the complainant sent a letter to O.P.No.1 to the effect to withdraw their hypothecian over the R. C. Book of complainant/ petitioner. Thereafter, on 23/9/2016 the complainant also sent a letter for requesting the O. P. No. 1 to issue NOC. But the O.P. No. 1 did not give any reply and informed to the complainant over telephone that there was outstanding amount of Rs. 2000/-, a cheque vide No. 237449 was bounced due to insufficiency of fund.

On receiving such telephonic message from Family Credit the complainant enquired about the same before his Banker and up dated his pass book. The pass book reflected that on 5/7/2012, a cheque vide No. 237449, amounting of Rs. 1243/- was deposited by the Family Credit was cleared. But on 18/7/2012, Rs. 56/- was deducted by the banker of the complainant for the purpose of dishonor of cheques.

The further case of the complainant is that on 5-5-2017 the complainant filed an application before the RTI and on 22/5/2017 the Bank Authority given statement of accounts by which it is found that the check was cleared on 5/7/2012 but Rs. 56/- was deducted on 18/7/2012 as the cheque was dishonored.

Finding no other alternative the complainant went before the office of O. P. No. 1 at Malda and asked to supply his statement of Account of loan. At first they refused to give the statement of account but latter on they supplied four pages of statement of accounts. From this statement it is also cleared that Family credit received the  collected amount of the cheque vide No. 237449 amounting of Rs. 1243/- on 5/7/2012 and on 6/7/2012 the said cheque was bounced and Banker of Family Credit applied Rs. 350/- as cheque bouncing in Loan Account of complainant. The O. P. No.1 received that cheque on 13/7/2012 and on the same date they applied Rs. 350/- as cheque bouncing charge.

The Family Credit Authority received all the EMI apart 36 no. of cheques.

From the petition it is also found that the O. P. No. 1, 2, 3, 4 cheated the complainant and it has been shown that the cheques has been bounced as such the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s.

The complainant prayed Rs. 10000/- for deficiency of service, Rs. 10000/-for mental pain and agony, Rs. 10000/- for litigation cost and Rs. 50000/- for compensation.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. No. 1, 2 and 3 separately by filling separate W.V. The defence case is made out by the O. P. No. 1 and 2 is that the case is barred for defect for non-joinder of necessary parties and the case is barred by estoppels, waiver, acquiescence and barred by limitation. It is a fact that the aforesaid complainant is the borrower of these opposite party (s). The complainant took a loan from the O.P.No.1. As per loan statement it is found that the complainant did not pay the outstanding loan in time and due to insufficient fund some installment payment through cheque has been bounced. For that the cheque bounce charge was imposed by the opposite party (s) which has been shown in the loan statement supplied by these opposite parties.

The further defence case is that the complainant filed this case with an object to get wrongful gain suppressing the material facts for which no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

The defence case is of O. P. NO. 3 as made out in the Written Version is that there is no cause of action to file the case against the O. P. No. 3. The further defence case is that the cheque vide No. 237449 amounting of Rs. 1243/- was deposited in Family Credit on 18/7/2012 and Rs. 56/- was deducted for dishonor of cheque and such facts has been reflected on the statement of accounts which was obtained by the complainant through RTI. As there was no sufficient fund as such the cheque was bounced for which the O. P. No. 3 is not at all liable. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed and the case has been filed in order to harass and be come down the reputation of the O. P. No. 3 before the public. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

During trial the complainant ( Bijoy Roy) was examined as PW1 and he was cross examined. No other witness was examined before the complainant. The complainant filed some documents. On the other hand the O. P. No. 1 and 2 though filed the W.V. but ultimately did not adduce any evidence to their defence. So, O. P. No. 1 and 2 was cross examined as PW1. On the other hand the O. P. No. 3 ( Raiganj Central Co- Operative Bank) adduced evidence to his defence and one Chiranjib Jana was examined as OPW1 and he was cross examined.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                           DECISION WITH REASONS

The fact of the case is that the complainant (Bijoy Roy) took a loan of Rs. 32000/- and that loan was repayment by 36 installments and the complainant deposited 36 post dated cheques in favour of O.P.No.1 and 2. According, to the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant is that the statement of accounts it is found that the cheque vide No. 237449 was deposited by the Family Credit on 5-7-2012 and the cheque was cleared. But the cheque vide No. 237449 was bounced due to insufficiency of fund and Rs. 56/- was deducted for dishonor of cheque. But it is not understood how the cheque was bounced because the cheque was already cleared and credited in favour of the O. P. No. 1 and 2. So it was a duty of O. P. No. 1 and 2 to issue the NOC. On the other hand some amount was due which is not at all believable as and when the statement of accounts it is found that the cheques were cleared and no amount was due. But there was a latches on the part of the O. P. No.3 is that the cheque vide No. 237449 was bounced on 18/7/2012 and Rs. 56/- was deducted for dishonor of cheque. So, definitely it was a latches on the part of the O. P. No. 3 and no explanation has been given by the bank why Rs. 56/- has been deducted. So, considering such facts and circumstances it is found that there was a latches on the part of the O. P. No. 1 and 2 for non issuing the NOC. On the other hand there was also latches on the part of the O. P. No. 3 (Raiganj Central Co- Operative Bank) for deducted of Rs. 56/- for the purpose of dishonor of cheque. But, actually no cheque has been bounced. So, considering such facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is,

                                                ORDERED

That the instant case being No. 45/17 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.

The complainant get Rs. 2000/- for deficiency of service, Rs. 2000/-as litigation cost, Rs. 2000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs. 4000/- for compensation and the total amount comes to Rs. 10000/-. The total amount will be paid by the all O.P.s in equal share that is 50% each as both the Family Credit Ltd and Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank jointly liable. The total amount will be paid within one month from the date of this order failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 5 % per annum. The petitioner is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law in case of default of payment by the O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 is directed to issue N.O.C to complainant, if not issued earlier.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.