Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint presented by the complainant against the Opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he in order to purchase a motorbike he had to deposit a sum of Rs.37,707/- with a dealer as initial hire amount and deposited accordingly. That the Opposite party advanced Rs.14,164/- towards the balance amount as a loan with interest at 14% p.a., that towards the repayment of the said loan he had given 15 cheques to the Opposite party, wherein the officials of the Opposite party by misguiding him taken 2 cheques more each for Rs.1,112/-. But, the total amount of Rs.14,456/- was repayable to the Opposite party. Therefore, the Opposite party ought to have taken 13 cheques for Rs.1,112/- each. Whereas the Opposite party has taken 15 cheques which works out to Rs.16,664/-. That he has also paid collection charges of Rs.540/- to the Opposite party. That the Opposite party in order to harass him through his letter dated 01.06.2007 demanded payment of Rs.1,112/- with the demand for payment of penal interest. The Opposite party again on 01.07.2007 sent another letter demanding Rs.2,224/-. Then when he approached the Opposite party and explained to him. Then, Opposite party sent a letter on 01.08.2007 demanding Rs.1,112/- with penal interest. He also got issued a legal notice questioning the act of the Opposite party, but he did not reply. However, demanded payment of Rs.1,112/- with penal interest. Therefore the claim of the Opposite party for payment of Rs.1,112/- with bounce and penal charges is illegal and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to return the original documents relating to his vehicle by cancelling hypothecation, to repay the excess amount of Rs.1,112/-, which has been wrongly collected and to return another cheque No.877591 by awarding damages with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party through his advocate has filed objection / version admitting the loan transaction the complainant had with it, but contended that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 18 equal installments with interest at 14% p.a. and denied that it had only sanctioned loan of Rs.14,164/- as contended by the complainant. The Opposite party has further contended 15 cheques given by the complainant for Rs.1,112/- each works out to Rs.16,680/-, the balance of Rs.3,320/- has been paid towards the balance amount, but the complainant has failed to pay one installment as one cheque issued by the complainant came to be bounced and that the complainant has not paid that amount to them, he further denying all other allegations contended if the complainant pays the balance amount they will issue no objection certificate and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the grievance of the complaint, the complainant and one Giridhar for the Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copies of account extract issued by the Opposite party and copies of the correspondences that took place between himself and the Opposite party. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he had only availed loan of Rs.14,164/- from the Opposite party and for repayment of it, he was liable to give only 13 cheques for Rs.1,112/- each, but the Opposite party by misguiding him taken 15 cheques and thereby collected more money resulting in Unfair Trade Practice?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for? <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The Opposite party has admitted in this complainant availing loan from it for purchase of a motorbike. The rate of interest agreed upon is also not in dispute. But, the claim of the complainant that he had availed loan of Rs.14,164/- only and he was liable to repay the same by issuing only 13 cheques for Rs.1,112/- each has been denied by the Opposite party by further contending that the complainant had availed loan of Rs.20,000/- issued 15 cheques for Rs.1,112/- each for repayment of the said amount. The account extract of the account of the complainant maintained with opposite party and as issued by the opposite party discloses that the complainant had availed loan of Rs.20,000/- from it. The extract further shows that all the cheques issued by the complainant for repayment of the loan were realised except one cheque which came to be bounced repeatedly. The witness who has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of the opposite party has also sworn to an affidavit to this effect. But the complainant in the affidavit evidence filed by him has not traversed the contentions of the opposite party regarding the quantum of loan advanced and number of cheques that were required to be issued by the complainant towards repayment of that loan. The complainant has also not rebutted the entries found in the account extract issued by the opposite party indicating sanction of loan of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant has not produced any documents or acceptable oral evidence to prove that he had only availed a loan of Rs.14,164/- and not Rs.20,000/-. The complainant has also not rebutted the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the opposite party.<br /> 7. The complainant as could be seen in the affidavit evidence except reproducing what he has stated in his complaint has not given any attention to the contentions raised by the opposite party in their version to deny the sanctioning of loan of Rs.20,000/- to him repayable with 15 installments. The complainant were to be sure that he had not taken loan of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party would have denied their contention as canvased by the opposite party, but has not chosen to do so. Therefore, the document that is the account extract of the opposite party and evidence of the opposite party that it had advanced loan of Rs.20,000/- and that the complainant had issued 15 cheques in all remained un-controverted. Further, it is noticed that the complainant after availing loan admitted to had issued 15 cheques, though he has stated as if the officials of the opposite party misguided him and taken 2 cheques in excess, but how he was misguided and what made him to give 2 cheques more has not been explained. Even otherwise thereafter the complainant after issue of cheques kept quite for all these years and when the opposite party demanded payment of one defaulted installment has come up before this Forum with a stand that he was misguided by the officials of the opposite party and taken 2 cheques more then what he was liable to. Even otherwise, the complainant has failed to prove that the loan he had availed was only Rs.14,164/- and not Rs.20,000/-. The opposite party further contended that one cheque issued by the complainant came to be bounced and a communication was also sent to the complainant to pay that amount, but the complainant did not pay. This stand of the opposite party remained un-rebutted. The opposite party in the version further stated, on the complainant paying the outstanding installment, it will issued NOC. It is under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the case of the complainant runs against the documents himself produced and he has not proved the opposite party taking 2 cheques more then what they were entitled and he is entitled for return of one cheque and refund of excess amount paid by him.<br /> 8. As noticed from the prayer of the complainant, the complainant appears to have paid the outstanding installment of Rs.1,112/- with bouncing charges and interest on it. If that be so, the opposite party is liable to return of the documents of the complainant and also issue no objection certificate as required. With this, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The complainant if already has not paid one over due installment of Rs.1,112/- with bouncing charges and penal interest if any shall pay that amount to the opposite party within 30 days from the date of this order, on the complainant so paying, the opposite party shall return all the documents pertaining to the vehicle No.KA-09-EG 3079 to the complainant including No Objection Certificate.<br /> 3. On the complainant paying the amount as indicated above, the opposite party shall within 15 days thereafter shall return all the documents pertaining to the vehicle including No Objection Certificate failing which it shall pay damages of Rs.1,000/- per month for each month of default.<br /> 4. Both parties to bear their own costs. <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />