KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 157/2011

 JUDGMENT DATED:25-03-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

Sayed Abdurahiman,

Mashoor Thangal,                                                              : APPELLANT

M.A.House, Edodi, Vatakara.

(By Adv.Sri.M.K.Sadanandan)

            Vs.

1.         M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Retail Assets Operations,

26-A Narayana Properties,

Chandivil

(Opp.)Saki Vihar Road,

Andheri East-Mumbai.

                                                                                    : RESPONDENTS

2.         HDFC Bank,

The auto Loan Department,

Malabar Palace, Calicut.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellant is the complainant in CC.312/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The complaint has been allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- from the opposite parties and issued 21 post dated cheques for monthly repayment at the rate of Rs.14,100/-.  After the period of expiry of the loan he applied for no objection certificate and was informed that one of the cheques have been bounced.  He paid the cheque amount + additional amount of Rs.450/- on 14/12/2005.  It is the case that even thereafter No Objection Certificate to the vehicle was not issued.  To the notice sent, the opposite party sent reply notice demanding Rs.6803/- for delayed payment.  According to the complainant, due to the non availability of the NOC he could not sell the vehicle after entering into agreement and receiving an advance amount of Rs.5000/-. He has sought for a compensation of Rs.35,000/-.

3.      Opposite parties have contended that the cheque for Rs.14,100/- was dishonoured during the month of December 2003 that the above amount was paid only on 14/12/2005.  The complainant had also to pay an over due amount of Rs.6803/-.  The above amount as written off.  No objection certificate was sent on 22/8/2006.

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1.

5.      It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he could not sell the vehicle in time and therefore he has sustained loss as the opposite party did not issue NOC.   It is also alleged that the opposite party did not intimate him that the cheque was dishonoured.

6.      We find that there is some deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not intimating the complainant of the bouncing of the cheque.  All the same we find that the complainant ought to have seen that none of the cheques are dishonoured.  He cannot blame the opposite party for the same.  The opposite parties have also waived a sum of Rs.6803/-.  As already noted the Forum has granted compensation.  There is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.

In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.