The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Manager, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Balasore Branch, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to start a stone crusher unit, approached the O.P for finance of a tipper, where the O.P agreed for a finance of Rs.15.20 lacs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs twenty thousand) only (cost of tipper) and the Complainant deposited Rs.2.30 Lacs (Rupees Two lakhs thirty thousand) only before the O.P on 29.03.2012 towards advance payment as per condition. Sanctioned amount of loan of Rs.12.90 lacs (Rupees Twelve lakhs ninety thousand) only along with interest to be repaid in 34 instalments by the Complainant on 17th of every month w.e.f 17.04.2012 as agreed upon by both the Parties and on payment of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand five hundred) only towards documentation charges by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant has repaid the amount through different cheques to the O.P amounting Rs.12.68 lacs (Rupees Twelve lakhs sixty eight thousand) only in 25 occasions ranging from 20.04.2012 to 19.07.2014. But, a sum of Rs.1,60,500/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand five hundred) only vide cheque dtd.13.03.2014 and 23.05.2014 though debited by the O.P from the Savings Bank account of the Complainant, but the amount has not been credited towards repayment of aforesaid loan account, as revealed from the statement of account supplied by the O.P for the period from 09.04.2012 to 25.06.2014. As such the O.P has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only for non-payment of instalments in time. Cause of action to file this case arose on 20.07.2014, followed by subsequent threatening to the Complainant by the O.P, causing mental agony to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for credit of Rs.1,60,500/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand five hundred) only with interest towards credit of loan account along with compensation for mental agony.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, jurisdiction, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.P has further submitted that the subject of dispute as alleged by the Complainant is related to issuance of cheques dtd.13.03.2014 and 23.05.2014, which are not mentioned in the statement of transaction for the period from 09.04.2012 to 25.06.2014 and instead of depositing the penalty amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only, which was imposed for its non-payment in time. The Complainant addressed a letter dtd.07.03.2014 to the O.P with the captioned subject “Instalment payment for loan account No.HZ568532 of Customer- Mrs. Snehalata Rout on perusal of which, it is learnt that the Complainant has given a cheque of Rs.73,500/- of Bank of India vide cheque No.4781 requesting the O.P to deposit the amount in his mother’s loan account which is defaulted for six instalments in which he and his mother were the partners of the same firm and his mother stood as a guarantor in his loan account HZ568511” and accordingly, the said cheque was deposited in the name of Mrs. Snehalata Rout, the mother of the Complainant. Similarly, the Complainant vide letter dtd.19.05.2014 requested the O.P  to deposit Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand) only vide cheque No.4784 in his mother’s loan account vide No.HZ568532, which is in default for seven instalments and mentioning the fact of deposition of Rs.73,500/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand five hundred) only with an admission for its realisation from his Bank account. Further, the Complainant vide his letter dtd.29.07.2014 has requested the O.P to deposit an amount of Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty three thousand five hundred) only vide cheque No.4786 in loan account No.HZ568532 with an admission of realisation of Rs.73,500/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand five hundred) only and Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand) only from his Bank account. Accordingly, all the three cheques vide No.4781, 4784 and 4786 for an amount of Rs.73,500/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand five hundred) only, Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand) only and Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty three thousand five hundred) only were deposited by the O.P in the loan account  No.HZ568532 and the loanee is the mother of the Complainant. The allegation made by the Complainant that the above three amount do not find place in his statement of account though paid by him is not true and correct. The said amount vide the said cheques have been deposited in the loan account of his mother as per his request and hence, there is no deficiency of service nor there is any unfair trade practice by the O.P. Thus, default in payment attracts penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only, which has been rightly charged by the O.P as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the Complainant is legally held liable for it. The Complainant is also liable to pay the principal outstanding loan amount. Thus, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.P as per C.P Act, 1986 ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has availed finance from O.P for purchase of a tipper and the O.P sanctioned an amount of Rs.12.90 lacs (Rupees Twelve lakhs ninety thousand) only against the cost of the tipper of Rs.15.20 lacs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs twenty thousand) only after payment of Rs.2.30 Lacs (Rupees Two lakhs thirty thousand) only against it. He was regularly paying the dues. He has paid Rs.1,60,500/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand five hundred) only in two cheques to the O.P on 13.03.2014 and 23.05.2014 towards loan. But, though said amount has been debited from his Savings Bank account, but it has not been credited to his loan account. As such the O.P imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only due to non-payment of loan amount in time, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.P, for which he has filed this case in this Forum praying for return of the said amount with interest along with compensation for mental agony. In the complaint petition, the Complainant has mentioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only towards compensation. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P that on the request of Complainant vide three separate letters, the required cheques are deposited in the name of Mrs. Snehalata Rout, the mother of the Complainant, the detailed of which has been mentioned in his pleading. Though the cheque nos. were 4781, 4784 and 4786 for an amount of Rs.73,500/- (Rupees Seventy three thousand five hundred) only, Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand) only and Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty three thousand five hundred) only respectively, so the allegation made by the Complainant is not correct as the said amount was deposited in the mother’s loan account of the Complainant as per his request. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P and the Complainant is a defaulter, for which the default in payment attracts penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only.

                    6. Though three letters alleged to have issued by the Complainant of dtd.07.03.2014, 19.05.2014 and 29.07.2014 have been challenged by the Complainant alleging that the signatures of the Complainant are forged one, for which the matter has been referred to the Handwriting Expert for examination and comparison with the admitted and disputed signatures of the Complainant on payment of usual fees of Rs.5,100/- (Rupees Five thousand one hundred) only by the Complainant and the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, CID, CB, HWB, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar- Banamali Sahoo after due comparison opined as follows:- “I am of the opinion that the red enclosed disputed signatures which I have stamped and marked as Q-1 to Q-3 are forged ones and are not in the handwritings of the person who wrote the red enclosed standard signatures which I have stamped and marked as S-1 to S-43 & A-1 to A-3”. So, when it came to general information that it has been forged documents, forged by the O.P, the O.P issued No due certificate after receiving of required due of Rs.17,419/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand four hundred nineteen) only from the Complainant as per order dtd.04.10.2017 of this Forum and settled the matter by filing a letter dtd.03.10.2017 regarding full and final settlement of the loan account of the Complainant, which was filed on 01.11.2017 in this Forum. But, the Complainant filed a petition U/s.193 of I.P.C on 05.12.2017 praying to take lawful action against the O.P for alleged act of the O.P as per opinion of the Handwriting Expert. But, subsequently he has not pressed the same on 26.03.2019. In the written version, the O.P has submitted that though the signatures of the Complainant are found in three disputed cheques, which has to be found as false and fabricated. So, the sole responsibility goes to the O.P after obtaining the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. So, it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P though it attracts a criminal proceeding, but the Complainant has not pressed the petition for criminal proceeding as mentioned earlier. The case was dragging in this matter from 11.08.2014 till date, for which it amounts to an exceptional case in the field of Consumer law and Consumer activities. So, exemplary compensation required to be imposed upon the O.P to meet the ends of justice in this case. The Complainant has already paid the required fees of the Handwriting Expert of Rs.5,100/- (Rupees Five thousand one hundred) only. The Complainant is admittedly a Consumer in this case from the above observation, for which he is entitled for getting compensation in this case. 

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and hearing both the sides, I am in the opinion that it is a fit case to allow it by imposing a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only towards compensation and a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand) only towards litigation cost upon the O.P in the special circumstances of the case, which shall be paid by the O.P to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against the O.P with cost. The O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P as per Law, in case of failure by the O.P to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 5th day of April, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.