DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Surjeet Singh Panwar r/o House No.216, Village Chandauli, District Panipat.

                                       ---Complainant.

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through Divisional Manager, SCO 153-154-155, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Jindal, Counsel for the complainant

                        None for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Surjeet Singh Panwar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite party :-

i)                   to return the remaining cheques

ii)                to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-

iii)              to pay litigation charges

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had taken a loan from the opposite party for purchasing JCB machine vide agreement dated 25.5.2009.  As per the agreement, the loan was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs.34,930/- commencing from 1.6.2009 i.e. the complainant was required to deliver post dated cheques for due payment of the installments.  So, the complainant delivered 35 blank cheques to the opposite party.

According to the complainant, in the month of September 2011 the opposite party presented two cheques on 3.9.2011 and 7.9.2011 and thereby received the amount of Rs.34,930/- twice in one month.  Thus the opposite party withdrew two installments in one month despite the fact that the second installment had not become due by that time.  It has further been averred that due to the act of the opposite party, another cheque, which was issued by the complainant in favour of Tata Capital Ltd., had to be returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in his account, which caused him harassment and adversely affected his reputation and goodwil.  He served a legal notice dated 14.10.2011 and reminder dated 21.11.2011 but to no avail. 

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In its written statement, it has been admitted by the opposite party that the complainant took a loan of Rs.9,86,000/- from it on 25.5.2009 for which installment of Rs.34,930/- was to be deposited every month.  It has also been admitted that the loan started on 1.6.2009.  However, it has been denied that the opposite party obtained 35 blank cheques from the complainant.  It has also been admitted that in the month of September two cheques of Rs.34,930/- each were presented for presentation but it has been pleaded that the same were presented by the complainant himself.   It has been averred that if any customer wants to deposit his installment in advance or prior to due date, then the bank cannot be blamed for the same.  It has been pleaded that the cheque issued in favour of TATA Capital Ltd. was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of the complainant and not due to the act of the opposite party.  It has further been pleaded that the loan account of the complainant has been closed and nothing is due towards him.   The remaining averments have been denied being wrong. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           On 4.2.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the opposite party.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the opposite party. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Admittedly the complainant took loan of Rs.9,86,000/- from the opposite party on 25.5.2009. The above said loan was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs.34,930/- each commencing from 1.6.2009.  It is also an admitted fact that in the month of September 2011 two cheques bearing No.210829 & 210830 amounting to Rs.34,930/- each were presented for encashment and the amount was debited from the account of the complainant.

7.                           As per the terms and conditions of the loan as well as the repayment schedule agreed upon between the parties, the complainant was required to repay the amount in monthly installments of Rs.34,930/- each. Hence, the opposite party had no right to withdraw any amount more than the instalment.

8.                           The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had taken 35 blank cheques from him at the time of disbursement of the loan.  This fact has been denied by the opposite party.  However, the plea of the opposite party is not supported by any cogent evidence whereas the plea of the complainant is supported by the documents placed on record.

9.                           Annexure A-8 is the copy of loan cum guarantee agreement. Clause 2.8.1 of the same provides that the borrower, co-borrower or the guarantor shall, if so required by the bank, deliver post dated cheques to the bank for the due payment of the installments. Thus from the clause mentioned above it is clear that the bank can ask for delivery of post dated cheques of the installments to the borrower.  The complainant has also placed on record the statement of account (Annexure A-4) of his bank.  From the perusal of this statement it is apparent that the cheques used for the withdrawal of installments of the loan are in continuous sequence (210821, 210822, 210823, 210824, 210825, 210826, 210827, 210828, 210829, 210830, 210835, 210834) which corroborates the plea of the complainant to the effect that blank cheques were taken from him.  Hence the version of the opposite party to the effect that blank cheques were not taken from the complainant and that the complainant himself deposited two cheques in the month of September 2011 cannot be accepted.

10.                       Admittedly two cheques were presented in the month of September 2011 for encashment which is contrary to the agreement and the payment schedule and the same amounts to deficiency in service. 

11.                       Now admittedly the complainant has paid all the installments and nothing is outstanding against him. 

12.                       The case of the complainant is that due the abovesaid deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the cheque issued by him in discharge of his liability towards another institution was dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds and he suffered embarrassment. 

13.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party directed as under :-

i)                   to return the remaining blank cheques to the complainant, if any.

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant

iii)              to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

14.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

15.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg