IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 307/09 DATED 07.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Rajalakshmi .K W/o late Nagesh Kumar, Door No.3522, R.P. Road, left, Opposite to Ashwini Printers, Nagesh Layout, Nanjangudu Town.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. G.R, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Retail Asset Division, 1st Floor, Mythri Arcade, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nanjanagudu Branch, Nanjanagudu.<br /> <br /> (By Sri S.C. for O.P.1, B.T.S for O.P.2, Advcoate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 07.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 28 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties seeking a direction to the first opposite party to return all the original documents in respect of Two wheeler KA-09 EL 3808 of the complainant along with no objection and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience caused.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, amongst other facts it is alleged that, the complainant borrowed loan from the first opposite party to purchase two wheeler. The loan was to be repaid by installments. Towards repayment of loan. The complainant had issued cheques on his account maintained with the second opposite party. In respect of last installment cheque dated 03.10.2008 returned unpaid by the second opposite party to the first opposite party. In this regard, the first opposite party had demanded a sum of Rs.676/- from the complainant towards cheque bounce charge and late payment charge. As regards the second opposite party in spite of the fact that there was sufficient fund in the account the second opposite party did not honour the cheque. In respect of the said cheque the complainant has made payment to the first opposite party on 28.02.2009. Hence, he has repaid the entire loan of first opposite party. In spite of it, original documents were not returned and no objection certificate has not been issued. Hence, it is alleged that, both the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party amongst other facts stated that, in respect of last installment the cheque that the complainant had given was sent to the second opposite party for collection but it returned bounced for the reason funds insufficient. In this connection a sum of Rs.676/- including in delayed payment, the complainant has to pay. Since this amount is due from the complainant no deficiency on the part of this opposite party can be attributed. <br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party in the version amongst other facts stated that, due to technical problem with the computer the cheque was returned unpaid. There is no negligence on the part of this opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the respective contentions, the complainant as well as the authorized persons for the opposite parties have filed affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 6. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly Affirmative <br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- It is admitted fact that towards payment of last installment of the loan of the first opposite party complainant had given the cheque. That cheque of the complainant pertaining to the account maintained by him in the second opposite party, admittedly returned unpaid for the reasons funds insufficient.<br /> <br /> 9. Since the cheque returned unpaid the first opposite party has claimed a sum of Rs.676/- towards cheque bounce charge as well late payment charge. In due course the installment was to be paid by the complainant on 03.10.2008 and the cheque was of the same date, That cheque has been bounced. Thereafter on 20.02.2009, the complainant has paid the last installment pertaining to the dishonored cheque. Hence, so for concerned to payment of that installment there is no dispute but it has been paid by the complainant nearly after about 3 months. Hence, in this regard the first opposite party has claimed the said amount.<br /> <br /> 10. From the records, it is found and even it is admitted that as on the relevant date in the account of the complainant maintained by him with the second opposite party there was sufficient fund to honour the cheque in question. In spite of it, admittedly it has been bounced. The second opposite party contend that, it was due to technical problem in the computer. The ultimate result is the cheque has been bounced. <br /> <br /> 11. The first opposite party has made certain allegations against the second opposite party and like wise the second opposite party made allegations against the first opposite party. But considering the entire facts, we feel it not necessary to consider the same at length, in view of certain admitted facts referred to in the earlier paragraphs.<br /> <br /> 12. The complainant alleges, in spite of repayment of entire loan the first opposite party has not issued no objection certificate and second opposite party in spite of sufficient balance in the account has bounced the cheque. Certainly said acts on the part of the opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service. Of course, the first opposite party claims sum amount and that is ordered to be paid. With this observations our finding. on the point is partly in affirmative. <br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to return all the original documents and issue no objection certificate to the complainant in respect of two wheeler KA 09 EL 3808 on receipt of a sum of Rs.676/- from the complainant within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. The second opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant compensation for mental agony and other inconvenience, within in a month from the date of the order and on failure to pay, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realization.<br /> 4. The second opposite party further to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards cost of proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th Oct 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />