O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows.

First opposite party is a vehicle Financing Company, the second opposite party is Regional Office, Kottayam. According to the petitioner the petitioner availed a vehicle loan as per vide contact No. ELY 014498 from the opposite party for buying a motor cycle. At the time of availing the loan, opposite party arranged repayment schedule for 36 month with EMI of Rs.1585/-. The petitioner states that at the time of availing the

-2-

loan petitioner issued 36 balnk cheques from his account drawn from the account maintained at Andhra Bank, Kottayam Branch. According to the petitioner he arranged fund for repayment timely and properly up to 36 instalments. But the drawee's bank returned the 36^th instalment cheque with vide No. 012145 dishonoured showing the endorsement “payee's name required”. The petitioner states that it is a duty of the opposite party to verify the entries in the cheque. According to petitioner imposing fine on dishonouring cheque by the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. The petitioner further states that for the smooth closure of the loan petitioner remitted both loan amount and fine. Accoroding to the petitioner even after closure of the loan opposite party kept the R.C book of the petitioner and the opposite party had not taken any steps to release the hypothecation. The petitioner on 6..1..2006 issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding indemnification of the loss and injury sustained to him. But the opposite party had not heed to the demands to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in imposing fine for the fault on the side of opposite party and detaining the R.C book after closure of the loan and non release of the hypothication is a clear deficiency of service . So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to give back the R.C book to the petitioner, after releasing hypothication and also he pray for a direction to the opposite party to pay cost of Rs. 2,500/- and compensation in the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.

First and second opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party contented that since the transaction had taken at Chennai this court has no jurisdiction

-3-

to entertain the matter. Further they contented that the second opposite party is unnecessarly impleaded. The opposite party admitted availing of the hire purchase arrangement to the petitioner to buy a motor cycle. They also admitted that the petitioner entrusted 36 cheques for effecting repayment. According to the opposite party petitioner had prepared the cheques but he negligently prepared one without mentioning the payee's name or identity. Hence cheque No. 1012145 dtd: 21..9..2005 sent for collection had been returned without encashing for want of payee's name. So, according to the opposite party, petitioner is responsible for the dishonour of the cheque. The opposite party contented that the petitioner is liable to pay fine and expenses incurred due to the dishonour of the cheque as per provisions of the contract. Further more the petitioner paid the same without any demour or hesitation. First opposite party after closing the account entrusted the R.C book and other required necessary forms for releasing the hypothecation with the second opposite party under intimation to the petitioner but the petitioner had not contacted the second opposite party and did not take back R.C book

and other documents. According to the opposite party petitioner is responsible for the latches delay and unhappy events. The adament attitude of the petitioner alone caused delay if any caused . So, the opposite party pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.

During the trial of the petition counsel for the opposite party filed a memo stating that first and second opposite party merged in Indusind Bank. So the petitioner impleaded 3^rd opposite party in the party array as an abandant caution.

-4-

Points for determination are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to Ext. A5 (a) documents on the side of the petitioner.

Point No. 1

Since opposite party has a contention that transaction has taken place at Chennai this Forum has no jurisdiction. So, that question is to be decided. As per section 11 (2) (b) Consumer Protection Act 1986. If any of the opposite parties, there are morethan one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides the district Forum got jurisdiction to entertain the matter. So, we are of the opinion that the petition is maintainable before this Forum.

According to the petitioner cheque for 36 instalment was dishonoured due to the negligence of the opposite party. The said cheque is produced by the petitioner and is marked as Ext. A1 the copy of the cheque return memo from the drawer's Bank is

produced and is marked as Ext. A2. The reason stated in Ext. A2 for the dishonour of the cheque is payee's name required . On perusal of Ext. A1 it can be seen that the name the payee's is shown as bank. According to the opposite party, the petitioner is responsible to draw the cheque properly. So according to them dishonour of the cheque is due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. We are of the opinion that even assuming the argument of the opposite party is true they have a bounden duty to verify the entries on the cheque leaf and other dcuments. If the opposite party found that the

-5-

negotiable instrument is in complete they have a duty to intimate the said fact to the petitioner and make necessary arrangement to complete the instrument. Further more, petitioner has a case that the opposite party has not returned the R.C Book and made necessary steps for releasing the hypothecation. The opposite party contented that the first opposite party after closing the account entrusted the R.C Book intimation of the releasing hypothecation and other required necessary forms for releasing the hypothecation with the second opposite party and the matter was intimated to the petitioner. But the opposite party has not produced any piece of paper to prove the said contention . Further more, the petitioner had issued a lawyers notice on 6..1..2006. Office copy is marked as Ext. A3. Acknowledgement card showing the acceptance notice of the opposite party as produced Ext. A5 and A5(a). But opposite party has not issued any reply to the Ext. A3 notice. So, we are of the opinion that the said contention of the opposite party stating that they are ready and willing to release the hypothecation and due to the negligence of the petitioner it was not done is not belivable. So, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party accepting the fine for dishonour of cheque and non release of hypothecation and detaining of the R.C book is a clear deficiency of service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1. Petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. So, opposite party is ordered to give back the R.C book to the petitioner after releasing the hypothecation. We are of the opinion that without saying what had happened definitly caused loss and sufferings to the petitioner.

-6-

So we direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidental Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the28th day of October, 2008.