Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased a Yamaha Motor Cycle by availing a loan of Rs.39,000/- from the O.P. He, also, made an initial payment of Rs.15,725/- to the O.P. The agreement was entered into on 02-03-2003. The “On road” price of the vehicle was Rs.51,644/-. The agreement was for Rs.49,920/- and the O.P. had collected 24 cheques from the complainant, each for Rs.2,080/-. The complainant says that he has paid Rs.54,725/- to the O.P.<br /> 2. The complainant has admitted that as many as 22 cheques issued by him returned unpaid as he could not maintain the required balance in his bank account. However, he paid the installments directly to the O.P. by cash. Now, the complaint is that the O.P. has collected excess amount from him. When a clarification about the excess collection was sought, the O.P. failed to provide it and instead another demand for Rs.10,000/- was made. The O.P. did not hand over the vehicle documents also.<br /> 3. The complainant has complained that the O.P. lodged a false police complaint and harassed him. These acts of the O.P. made him to issue a legal notice calling upon the O.P. to reimburse the excess amount collected from him. As there was no reply the complainant approached this Forum. He has claimed reimbursement of the excess amount from the O.P. and Rs.15,000/- as compensation.<br /> 4. The O.P. in his version has admitted the existence of the contact with the complainant. However, it is pointed out that as the complainant’s cheques bounced, the penal interest added up to his account and as such he is still liable to pay them Rs.8,378.92. The O.P. has reiterated that the complainant has not paid any excess amount. It is pointed out that penal interest is charged on a daily basis. The O.P. says that the complaint has been filed without verifying the facts and the clauses in the agreement. It is further stated that unless the complainant pays up the entire amount they are not liable to handover the documents and key of the vehicle. <br /> 5. From the rival contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a. Whether the complainant proves that the O.P. has collected excess amount from him thereby amounting to deficiency in service?<br /> b. Whether the O.P. proves that the complainant still owes him Rs.8378.92 towards the loan?<br /> c. What relief or order?<br /> 6. Our finding on the above are as under:-<br /> Point no.5(a) : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.5(b): In the Negative.<br /> Point no.5(c): As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point 5(a) and 5(b:- One admitted fact is that the complainant issued 24 cheques, each for Rs.2080, towards the loan availed from the O.P. Thus the total repayment that the complainant is liable to make is Rs.49,920/-. The complainant says that he has paid Rs.54,592/- to the O.P. including initial payment of Rs.15,575/-. He has produced 6 receipts issued by the O.P. and one receipt of M/s The Bikes India. They add up to Rs.49,259/-. It is obvious that the complainant made these payments - except the payment made to M/s The Bikes India - in lieu of the bounced cheques. As against this, the O.P. has produced a statement showing the number of days of delay in payment of each installment by the complainant and the penal interest / cheque bounce charges charged as a consequence of such delay. Hence, though the amount paid by the complainant almost satisfies the repayment obligation under the loan agreement, the O.P. has claimed an amount of Rs.8378.92 towards penal interest cheque bounce charges. In the normal circumstances, the O.P. would have been entitled to this amount if the original loan agreement had been produced to satisfy us that the agreement provided for collection of penal interest and / or cheque bounce charges. However, despite this Forum passing an interim order directing the O.P. to produce the original loan agreement and to provide the details of penal interest / cheque bounce charges, the O.P. failed to do so and merely filed a statement. It had been made clear in our interim order that adverse inference would be drawn for non production of the documents. As the called documents have not been furnished, adverse inference is what we will draw. The basic minimum document is the loan agreement which authorizes the O.P. to collect penal interest / cheque bounce charges. Production of the agreement would have revealed the amount that can be charged as penal interest / cheque bounce charges. In the absence of this document the O.P. can not get a favourable verdict.<br /> 8. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant has paid all the installments. The claim of Rs.8378.92 is towards penal interest / cheque bounce charges which should have been proved by producing the loan agreement. Since it is not produced the claim of the O.P. should be quashed. In the result, we answer point 5(a) in the affirmative and point 5(b) in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. The claim of the O.P. against the complainant is quashed.<br /> <br /> 3. The O.P. is directed to handover the documents of title of the vehicle and the key of the vehicle to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the O.P. shall pay the complainant global compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> 4. No costs.<br /> <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />