1. Ms. Shalini Sahu Arora,

            38, Ripon Street, Kolkata-16,

            P.S. Park Street.                                                                                                           _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. Kotak Mahindra             Prime Ltd.,

            Kotak Infiniti, 4^th Floor, Bldg no.21,

            Infiniti Park, Off Western Express Highway,

General A K Vaidya Marg, Malad (E),

Mumbai – 400097    and

Apeejay House, 17 Park Street,

Kolkata-16, P.S. Park Street.                                                                  ________ Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   33    Dated   26-03-2015.

          The case of the complainant in short is that in the year 2006 complainant was working in Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Ltd. at their Gariahat office as the Sales Manager. At that time she received an office mailer from o.p. informing her that she would be entitled to avail of a car loan at a very attractive rate of interest if she bought a car availing of the car loan from o.p. She then received several phone calls from o.p. requesting her to avail the loan. In order to dishonestly induce her o avail of the loan the callers told her that being an employee of Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Ltd. she would be entitled to a preferential rate of interest. At that time complainant wanted to purchase a car of Hyundai Company namely Santro bearing Model No.XO. The officials of o.p. represented that they can arrange for the funds for purchase of the said vehicle provided the complainant makes over to them 60 undated cheques for a sum of Rs.6997/- each which will be deposited on 1^st day of every month commencing from 1.6.06 to 1.5.11. O.p. will directly pay the amount to the dealer of the said vehicle namely Bengal Hyundai, Free School Street, Kolkata a sum of Rs.3,33,356/- out of the total consideration of Rs.3,49,607/- and complainant would have to pay the balance consideration of the said vehicle as also necessary charges towards registration of the aforesaid vehicle and obtaining insurance thereto.

            From June 2006 till Oct. 2009, though complainant may have been a little late on a few occasions, but she has been diligently paying the installment as per repayment schedule. On or around 24.10.09 complainant wrote to o.p. and requested them to hand back the unencashed 19 nos. cheques (Nov. 2009 to May 2011) and she agreed to issue fresh cheques in lieu of the returned cheque as she was shifting her banking operations to Axis Bank.  

            Around April 2010 complainant was shocked to receive intimation from Kotak Mahindra Bank that her savings account (on which the cheques were drawn) was running in negative balance. She immediately contacted her bank and learnt the debit entries were on account of penal charges towards dishonour of the cheques lying entrusted with o.p. It became obvious that o.p. was encashing the fresh Axis Bank cheques towards the payment of the EMI and simultaneously misusing the old Kotak Mahindra Bank cheques lying entrusted with them.

            Relying upon the dishonest promises of o.p. the complainant handed over 5 cheques drawn on Axis Bank along with the cheque towards the “swapping charge” to Francis, a representative who was sent to her residence by Mr. Soumen Neogi on 1.12.10. Despite receiving the 5 new cheques o.p. continued depositing the Axis Bank cheques along with the entrusted Kotak Mahindra Bank cheques. Even in the month of April 2011 o.p. attempted to embezzle money from complainant by misutilising the entrusted cheque.

            Complainant has been deprived of valuable consideration in excess of Rs.3,50,000/- being the value of her vehicle. she has also been burdened by the arbitrary and unlawful claim of Rs.18,796.50 which has been fabricated by o.p.             Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the petition of complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            Sole o.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It appears from the record that o.p. by letter dt.24.10.09 requested the complainant to cancel the post dated cheques issued by complainant on account of repayment of the monthly installment but complainant did not hand over fresh cheques to replace the post dated cheques and post dated cheques were presented on regular basis for encashment on its respective due dates. It further appears from the record that o.p. simply charged swapping charges as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement and we find no deficiency on the part of o.p.

            In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record, we hardly find any lapse on the part of o.p. and further hold that complainant has failed to substantiate and prove her case and is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.