BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Inderjit s/o Sh. Paras Ram, r/o Village Chalan, P.O. Kathgarh, District Nawashahra, Now Shahid Bhagat Singh, Punjab

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Sundaram Finance Limited, through its Manager, S.C.O. No.11, First Floor, Sector-26, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Davinder Lubana, Adv. for complainant.

OP ex-parte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant, took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of January, 2006, from  Sundaram Finance Limited (OP) vide Contract no. BP0199 and  purchased a vehicle-Mohindra Pick-up now bearing Registration No. PB-32-F-6391. According to the complainant, he paid monthly installment of Rs.9333/- each regularly to the OP towards the repayment of the loan. After making full and final payment of the loan, the complainant approached the OP for issuance of N.O.C. but OP without explaining any reason asked the complainant to deposit Rs.10,997/-, as according to the OP, the two cheques of the complainant had bounced.  The complainant stated that his account had always remained with sufficient funds and the cheques bounced due to the lapse on the part of the OP because one cheque was not deposited in time by OP and another cheque was deposited in other branch wrongly by OP, for which both the cheques got dishonoured.  The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 3.07.09, regarding issuance of N.O.C and to refund the excess amount of the complainant and compensation for unnecessary mental agony and harassment but the OP did not reply the said legal notice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complainant prayed that the OP be directed to issue N.O.C and compensation for mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service for not providing N.O.C. in time and unfair trade practice.

2]             Notice of the complaint for written reply and evidence was sent to OP, seeking their version of the case. Counsel for OP filed his memo of appearance only. Proxy Counsel for OP appeared on 4.11.09 and sought time to file vakalatnama, reply & evidence. None appeared on behalf of OP; accordingly OP was proceeded against ex-parte.

3]             The complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

4]           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5]           Annexure C-1 is the statement of transactions showing that the amount of loan was to be repaid by the complainant in 24 installments of Rs.9,333/- each.  The complainant has produced the statement of accounts obtained from the Kathgarh Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank which is now marked as Annexure C-8, showing that 23 installments of loan had been repaid by him.  The complainant has also paid the first installment of Rs.9,333/- in cash on 26.07.06 as is reflected from Annexure C-1 and in this manner all the 24 installments have been paid by him.  He also paid Rs.20,000/- in cash on 26.09.08 as reflected from account statement Annexure C-1. The OP is still demanding Rs.10,997/- and has not so far issued N.O.C. to the complainant.

6]           The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the cheque no.429533 which was payable on 12.07.06 was dishonoured and due to that fact the complainant is therefore liable to pay interest and late payment charges. The complainant has placed on file Annexure C-2 which is the copy of the said cheque dated 10.07.06.  Annexure C-3 shows that it was dishonoured by the bank because instead of sending the said cheque to Kathgarh Branch of the OP for encashment, the same was sent to Nawanshahr Branch.  Annexure C-3 is the memo vide which it was dishonoured due to the reason that it was not drawn to the said branch of the OP bank.  The cheque Annexure C-2 shows that thereafter cutting was made in the date of the cheque and under the date 10.07.06 another date 10.01.07 was written.  It is clear that this cutting was made unauthorizedly by the officials of the OP and the said cheque was again submitted to the Kathgarh Branch but it was again dishonored vide Annexure C-4 due to the cheque being “mutilated/postdated/out of date”. In this manner if there was any delay in the payment of this installment, it was due to the fault of the OP, first in presenting the cheque in a wrong branch and secondly presenting it after a period of 6 months by illegally changing the date thereof.  The complainant therefore cannot be burdened to pay interest or late payment charges for non payment of this installment.  The OP has already paid much more than the amount due from the complainant.

7]           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to overhaul the account and not to charge anything from the complainant for the dishonored cheque no.429533 and further directed to refund to the complainant the amount received in excess from the complainant as referred to above and also issue N.O.C. to the complainant with respect to the loan alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12%p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.09.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.