O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows :
The complainant availed himself of a loan to the tune of Rs. 1,90,606/- from the opposite parties and the date of disbursal was on 30-08-2008. The loan was to be repaid in 36 monthly EMI's @ Rs. 8,272/- each. EMI banking date was 4th day of every month. The complainant has issued 6 cheques drawn on ICICI Edappally Branch for ECS. As usual the EMI amount has been encashed on 04-08-2008, At that juncture, the complainant approached another financial company for business loan of Rs. 30 lakhs. Though the company has completed the formalities all of a sudden rejected the complainant's loan application stating that a cheque issued by the complainant has been dishonoured by ICICI, Edappally branch. On enquiry, by mistake on the part of the opposite parties only Rs. 1,112/- has been encashed on 04-11-2008. It was also found from the action dated 24-11-2008 that the opposite parties presented another cheque on ECS without the complainant's knowledge and Rs. 281/- has been deducted as cheque return charge. Thus, the complainant has lost his reputation in the bank and other financial institution and now he is in a bad situation of closing of his business. The complainant has caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties to get his grievances redressed, but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties not to present the cheques of the complainant for collection and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.
2. Version of the opposite parties :
The opposite parties had given a mandate through ECS for the payment of monthly EMI of Rs. 8,272/- on 04-11-2008 and an amount of Rs. 1,112/- alone was encashed from the account of the complainant due to some technical reasons and the same was intimated to the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to maintain the balance amount in the account and when the mandate was again presented on 24-11-2008 for encashment of the balance amount, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant is not entitled for any amount as claimed for. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether the opposite parties are empowered to send the cheques for collection?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite parties?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- According to the complainant, though there was sufficient balance in his account, due to the mistake on the part of the opposite parties an amount of Rs. 1,112/- alone was collected on 04-11-2008 out of the EMI amount of Rs. 8,272/-. It is stated that H.D.F.C. Bank has rejected the loan application of the complainant due to the dishonour of the balance amount in the EMI. It is further stated that due to the above deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he has lost his reputation and in a bad situation of closing of his business.
6. Apart from the interested oral testimony of the complainant, nothing is before us to corroborate or substantiate the above contentions of the complainant. It would seen that the complainant is fighting against the wind will having failed to prove that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheques. In the absence of the least of such evidence, we are at a loss to entertain this complaint.
7. In the result, we are only to dismiss the complaint. Ordered so.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of June 2011.
