<br /> C.C filed on: 19-11-2009 <br /> Disposed on: 15-06-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT<br /> NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052<br /> <br /> C.C. NO.2709/2009<br /> Dated of this 15th day of June 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> Present:<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa President <br /> Sri.Ganganarasaiah Member<br /> Smt.Anitha Shivakumar.K. Lady member <br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> Sri.B.K.Prasanna Kumar<br /> S/o. Late Sri.Krishnamurthy,<br /> Aged about 72 years, Complainant <br /> # 51/4, Osborne Road, 2nd Cross,<br /> Shivan Chetty Garden, <br /> Bangalore-650 026<br /> (By Sri.M.D.Raghunath, Advocate)<br /> <br /> AND <br /> <br /> <br /> Kotak Mahindra Prime limited,<br /> # 20, 3rd Floor, uniworth Plaza,<br /> Sankey Road, Palace Guttahalli, Opposite party <br /> Bangalore-560 020<br /> By its authorized representative<br /> (By Sri.B.L.Srikantaiah, Advocate)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) are that, he had availed car loan from OP and issued necessary direction to the banker namely City Bank for repayment of loan through ECS arrangement. That OP had also taken initial security deposit of cheques signed by him as proprietor of his business concern. That he had closed his account with City bank. Thus he had issued 12 cheques towards EMI’s, each amounting to Rs.10,725/- drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bharathinagar, Bangalore in favour of OP. The OP after receiving 12 cheques subsequently have not returned the initial security deposit cheques drawn on City Bank and still they are in OP custody. That he had made payment upto August 2009 and once again issued 12 cheques towards payment of EMI’s which are returned by OP to him on 18-8-2009. That he has also issued 12 cheques signed by him drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bharathinagar, Bangalore branch each for Rs.10,725/- and requested OP to return cheques bearing No.577676 to 577679 but OP has not returned those cheques bearing No.577676 to 577679 to return initial deposit cheques taken by them. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared and filed version through his Advocate admitting sanction of loan to the complainant and issue of 12 cheques towards EMI’s drawn on City Bank. He has further admitted that he had received 12 post dated cheques as initial deposit security cheques drawn on City Bank and they are in their custody and they are not returned as the complainant has not done signature verification and not made payment of Rs.550/- towards swaping charges by complainant. OP has admitted that the complainant had made payment upto date and he had once again issued 12 cheques towards payment of EMI’s which were returned by them under a covering letter dated 18-8-2009 and that complainant had requested to return 12 cheques to one Mr.Prabhakaran. The OP further narrating about the installment paid towards repayment of loan further denying legality to pay compensation has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence producing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with complaint has produced copies of certain correspondences that took place between him and OP. Bank account statement and also copies of few cheques. The OP has not produced documents. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above materials following points for determination arise<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not returning certain cheques he had taken towards security for repayment of loan?<br /> 2. To what relief the complaint is entitled?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Answer on Point No.1: In the affirmative<br /> Answer on Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: On going through the contentions of the parties there is no dispute over the fact that the complainant had availed car loan from OP agreeing to repay the same through ECS method and had also issued certain cheques towards initial security deposit with 12 cheques towards payment of EMI’s drawn on City bank. Similarly, there is no dispute that the complainant closed his account in the City bank and then issued 12 new cheques towards repayment of loan through ECS drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bharathinagar, Bangalore. The claim of the complainant that after issued fresh cheques towards security drawn on State Bank of Bikaner, OP has not returned the security cheques drawn on City Bank given to the OP is admitted by OP at Para No.3 of its version and also in his affidavit evidence but contended that old security cheques were not returned to the complainant for want of signature verification and for non-payment of swaping charges of Rs.550/-. Therefore it is admitted by OP that previous security cheques are not returned to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant though contended that he had made payment upto August-2009 and he had once again issued 12 cheques towards payment of EMI’s and they are also not returned but has admitted that his previous 12 cheques taken for payment of EMI’s are returned to him but OP has not returned cheques bearing no.577676 to 577679 dated 14-3-2008. On perusal of copy of letter of Senior Sales manager of OP dated 14-3-2008, he has admitted that five cheques issued to them towards EMI’s payment were not returned and promised those 5 cheques will be returned to the complainant after 20 days of that letter. When the OP failed to return those 5 cheques, the complainant got issued a legal notice to OP on 9-9-2009 reminding OP to return cheques bearing No.577676 to 577679 and another blank cheques bearing No.577680 and stated till now OP has not returned those cheques. Therefore, we find that, OP caused deficiency in his service in not returning those cheques as such the complaint needs to be allowed. Therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and we pass the following.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> OP is directed to return cheques bearing No.577676 to 577679 and 577680 dated 14-3-2008 and also to return five cheques given to him by the complainant which are given as initial deposit cheques taken at the time of sanctioning loan which were drawn on City Bank, within 45 days from the date of this order. Failing which, OP shall pay damages of Rs.250/- per month from the date of this order until those cheques are returned.<br /> <br /> OP shall pay damages for Rs.5,000/- towards hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of this order failing which he shall pay interest at 8% per annum from the date of this order till it is paid. Lastly, the OP shall also pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 15th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />