Date of Filing: 23.04.2010 Date of Order: 25.06.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2010 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 942 OF 2010 Sri B.V. Mahesh Kumar, No.227/e, 3rd Cross, BHCS Layout, Uttrahalli Main Road, Bangalore-560061. Complainant V/S M/s. Maruti Countrywide, No.4, Prime Business Centre, 2nd floor, Sri Krishna Temple Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-38. Opposite party ORDER By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complaint. The brief facts of the case are that, he had purchased a Maruti Omni van by availing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- through opposite party. He approached the opposite party for premature closure of the loan. He was asked to pay Rs.2,276/- extra and cheque returning charges of Rs.650/-, he disputed the same. The Loan was closed, NOC was given to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that loan was closed by 15-9-2009, he had to pay cheque bounce charge of Rs.615/- on 14-12-2009 under protest. On 31-12-2009, he sent a letter to the opposite party requesting for refund of cheque bounce charges of Rs.615/-. There was a balance of Rs.50,000/- in his account therefore, the complainant asked for refund of cheque bounce charges. The opposite party has not taken any steps for refund of the amount, hence the complaint for direction to the opposite party to refund cheque bounce charges of Rs.615/- with interest and damages of Rs.25,000/-. 2. After admitting the complaint the notice was issued to the opposite party by RPAD. Notice was served on the opposite party. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite party on 23-6-2010, the opposite party did not appear before this Fora, defense version also not sent by post. Therefore, the opposite party has been placed ex-parte. The complainant submission was heard. Perused the documents. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, the case of the complainant has to be accepted as true and correct. The opposite party has not explained how it has collected cheque bounce charges of Rs.615/- from the complainant, even though there was sufficient amount in his account. So under these circumstances the complaint is right in asking refund of Rs.615/- from the opposite party which had been illegally collected. The opposite party has committed deficiency of service in collecting Rs.615/- as cheque bounce charges. Therefore, the opposite party is bound to refund the same to the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act is social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The complainant being a consumer under the Act, his interest deserves to be protected. For no fault of complainant he has been put to loss. Therefore, he is entitled for the refund of amount. The complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite party. On the fact of the case it is not a fit case to grant compensation. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 3. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.615/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The complainant is also entitled Rs.500/- as cost of present proceeding from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to send the above amount to the complainant address directly by way of DD/Cheque with intimation to this Forum. 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
