This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 28-09-11 in the presence of complainant, Sri K. Lakshmi Narayana, advocate for 1^st opposite party,  2^nd opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,050/- being the amount collected by the 1^st opposite party on the ground of dishonour of cheques; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant purchased air-condition equipment with the financial assistance of Rs.17,000/- from the 1^st opposite party vide loan No.443CD00001667.   The complainant agreed to discharge the said loan together with interest @Rs.2,125/- p.m.    On 14-10-10 the complainant presented a cheque drawn on the 2^nd opposite party in favour of the 1^st opposite party for Rs.2,125/- vide cheque No.534585.   The complainant paid the amount in cash plus Rs.350/- as penalty in January, 2011 on the demand of the 1^st opposite party.    Likewise the 1^st opposite party collected Rs.350/- as penalty plus instalment amount contending that the cheques given were dishonoured.   The complainant confronted the same with the 2^nd opposite party.    The 2^nd opposite party in turn replied that it did not receive any cheques from the 1^st opposite party.   Inspite of demand the 1^st opposite party did not furnish the cheque return memos and illegally collected for three months @ Rs.350/- each.  The 1^st opposite party harassed the complainant for amount by making phone calls.   On account of that the complainant suffered mentally.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.     The 2nd opposite party remained exparte.

4.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The complainant did not issue separate cheque for each months.   The complainant entered into an agreement with the 1^st opposite party and gave authorization to the 1^st opposite party to get payment of monthly installments by way of electronic clearing system that he is having online account facility with the 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party is utilizing the services of M/s Tech Process Solutions Limited for collection of money from its customers.   The said Tech Process Solutions Limited informed the 1^st opposite party in writing that there were insufficient funds in the account of the complainant for the collection of installments for February, March and April, 2011.   Basing on such information the 1^st opposite party collected monthly installment amount of Rs.2,125/- along with Rs.350/- towards cheque bouncing charges directly from the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party never harassed the complainant.   The complainant is not entitled to recover Rs.1,050/- towards cheque bouncing charges and the compensation.    The complaint therefore be dismissed.   

1. The 1^st opposite party though more than sufficient time was granted did not file affidavit supporting its contentions.   Therefore the matter is proceeded exparte.
2. Exs.A-1 to A-12 on behalf of the complainant were marked. 
3. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
   1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
   2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
   3. To what relief?

8.   POINT No.1:-     The 1^st opposite party in para 6 of its version mentioned the following:

                “It is further submitted that there is an agency in the name and style of Tech Process Solutions Limited which is working under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India for money transactions.   The 1^st opposite party is utilizing the services of the said Tech Process Solutions Limited for the process of collection of money from its customers.   The task of collection of money from the complainant was also entrusted to the said Tech Process Solutions Limited.   The said Tech Process Solutions Limited informed to the 1^st opposite party through written memos stating that there was insufficient funds in the account of the complainant for the collection of installments for the months of February, March and April, 2011.  Basing on the intimation given by the said Tech Process Solutions Limited, the 1^st opposite party is constrained to collect monthly installment amount of Rs.2,125/- along with Rs.350/- towards check bouncing charges directly from the complainant for the above said 3 months.   The said amount was collected by the 1^st o only believing the intimation given and representation made by the said Tech Process Solutions Limited”.

9.     The said admission of the 1^st opposite party proved the contention of the complainant about collection of Rs.350/- plus installment amount of Rs.2,125/- for 3 months.   Now the Forum has to see whether the complainant had sufficient funds in his account or not during February, March and April, 2011.    Ex.A-12 is the copy of account of the complainant bearing No.52099605256 and it tallied with the account number mentioned in Exs.A-4 to A-7.    Exs.A-4 to A-7 revealed that cheques were returned due to insufficient funds.                      Ex.A-11 endorsement given by the 2^nd opposite party established that it had not received cheques for Rs.2,125/- each on 05-01-11,                    07-02-11 and 07-03-11. 

10.   The burden is on the 1^st opposite party to prove that the complainant issued cheques without sufficient funds.    Exs.A-4 to A-7 were issued by M/s Tech Process Solutions Limited which was employed by the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party did not file cheque return memos to show that cheques issued by the complainant were returned.   Under those circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the 1^st opposite party.    Collecting Rs.350/- towards cheque bounce charges by the 1st opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.    We therefore opine that the 1^st opposite party collected Rs.350/- each on three occasions from the complainant for no fault of him and as such he is entitled for return of that amount.     In view of the above discussion we answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

11.   POINT No.2:-    The conduct of the 1^st opposite party in serving Exs.A-4 to A-7 memos through M/s Tech Process Solutions Limited is unjust.    No financier will keep quite without making calls by phone            if installment amount is not paid.    Therefore the contention of the complainant about he suffering mentally agony cannot be ruled out.   Considering the amount involved awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

12.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,050/- together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realization.
2.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation.
3. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
4. The claim against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.
5. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30th day of September, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   NIL

 PRESIDENT