Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to immediately issue the NOC to the complainant and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation. It was further directed that, in case, the OPs, failed to comply with the order within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the same, they would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., on the aforesaid amounts, till the NOC was issued, or the amount in full, was paid to the complainant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP-2, to purchase a Maruti car. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.2290/- each, starting from 04.05.2005 to 04.02.2010. Two advance EMIs were taken by the OPs, at the time of sanctioning the said loan. The complainant started making payments of EMIs without any default, but he was astonished to receive a telephonic call from OP-2, that some cheques towards the EMI`s had not been honoured. He immediately cross-checked the same, from the record, and found that none of the cheques had been dishonoured. On inquiry, the OPs issued him a ‘Statement of Account’ showing six cheques of EMI`s which had not been honoured. It was stated that, as per the statement of account of the complainant, issued by the bank, no cheque was dishonoured. It was further stated that despite the payments, having been made to the OPs, they did not issue the NOC. A legal notice was issued to the OPs, on 5.03.2010, but no response was received. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. OP NOs.1 & 2 were duly served. Their Counsel appeared and sought time, to file reply, and evidence by way of affidavit. On the adjourned date, none appeared on behalf of OP Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte. 4. OP No.3, State Bank of India, though was not made a party to the appeal, in its written reply in the complaint, submitted that, 25 cheques were issued, in favour of Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Pvt. Ltd., by the complainant, having saving account, in their Branch, out of which, 22 cheques were presented through clearing house, and were duly paid. It was further stated that as per the detail of the case provided to them, the Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Pvt. Ltd. claimed that 5 cheques were not paid, but after verification of their bank records, out of those 5 cheques, 3 cheques were paid on some other dates, and the remaining 2 cheques bearing nos. 986389 and 986394 dated 04.06.2005 and 04.11.2005 respectively were not presented to their branch. It was further stated that their branch was a Sunday open branch and Monday was their weekly off. It was further stated that it was possible that the bankers of Maruti Countrywide might have presented those cheques on Monday and the same were returned by the clearing house itself. It was further stated that OP NO.3 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 5. After filing reply, none appeared on behalf of OP NO.3, and it was proceeded against ex parte. 6. The evidence was led by the parties. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the Counsel for OP NOs.1 & 2, who appeared, on the date of arguments , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellants/ OPs. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence andrecord of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, the loan which was obtained by the complainant, was to be repaid in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.2290/- each, starting from 4.5.2005 to 4.2.2010. He further submitted that, as per the record, some of the cheques relating to the EMIs, given by the complainant, were dishonoured. He further submitted that the complainant never approached for issuance of NOC. He further submitted that the matter was also referred to the Lok Adalat and the appellants, as a goodwill gesture, waived off an amount of Rs.6441/- in order to settle the matter. He further submitted that the appellants had already closed the Account of the complainant, and issued NOC, in respect of the loan account, and the same was handed over to the Counsel for the appellants, for handing over the same to the complainant, in the Lok Adalat. It was further stated that the Counsel for the appellants, however, did not appear in the Lok Adalat. He further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellants, to defend their case. He further submitted that the District Forum ignored the fact that the complainant never approached the appellants, for issuance of NOC. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in awarding compensation, in favour of the complainant/respondent. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the complainant/respondent, paid the EMIs, from time to time, and no cheque issued by him, was ever dishonoured. He further submitted that No Objection Certificate, was not issued to him, by the appellants, despite the fact that he requested them a number of times, and also issued a legal notice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant, was paying EmIs of the loan. The case of the appellants was that one or two monthly installments had not been paid by the complainant even till the information was sent to him . He wrote e.mails annexures C-2 & C-3 asking the details thereof. It was upon receipt of such e.mails that annexure C-6, statement of account was provided to the complainant. In C-6, it is mentioned that the cheque dated 4.6.2005 was dishonoured, on account of insufficient funds. However, on a careful perusal of ‘statement of account’ annexure C-1 of the complainant issued by his bank, it is revealed that there was an amount of Rs.1,94,595.39p in his account, on the date, when the cheque was presented, and, as such, the question of dishonouring of the same, on account of insufficient funds, did not at all arise. On the other hand, it is evident from C-1, that the cheque, in question, in the sum of Rs.2290/- was debited to the account of the complainant. There is another cheque dated 4.9.2005 shown in C-6. Against this entry, the words ‘weekly off’ were written. On the other hand, from the ‘statement of account’ C-1 of the complainant, it is evident that the cheque was honoured on 15.9.2005, and was not dishonoured. Again, there is another entry dated 4.11.2005 in C-6. Against this entry, the words “insufficient funds” had been written and, on account of this reason, the cheque, in question, which was issued towards EMI by the complainant, was stated to be dishonoured. However, from C-1, it is evident that on 5.11.2005, Rs.208205.39p were lying in the account of the complainant and the cheque dated 4.11.2005 was honoured, and Rs.2290/- were debited to his account. Thus, the plea of the appellants that the cheque dated 4.5.2005 was dishonoured, was also proved to be wrong. Thereafter, there is another cheque No.986394 dated 4.12.2005, which was asked to be presented again. The cheque was presented again on 21.12.2005, as is evident from C-1, and the same was honoured. It was also admitted by the OPs, in statement C-6, that the payments each of Rs.2290/- were directly made by the complainant on 14.7.2005, 17.9.2005, 23.12.2005, 23.2.2006 and 25.11.2006. It is also evident from C-12 to C-14 that the payments were made towards EMIs of loan on 9.6.2006, 9.7.2006 and 21.11.2006. Under these circumstances, the plea of the OPs, to the effect, that some of the installments, had not been paid by the complainant, was belied from the documents. On the other hand, the plea of the complainant, to the effect, that the OPs had received the excess amount, was also not proved. Further from C-6, issued by OP Nos. 1 & 2 , to the complainant, it is evident that some of the cheques were dishonoured in 2005. However, no letter was written by the OPs, to the complainant, till the filing of the complaint, if any amount was due against him. 13. After filing of reply and the evidence, none appeared on behalf of OP No.3 State Bank of India. In its reply, OP NO.3 stated that five cheques were alleged by OP Nos.1 & 2, to have been dishonoured. In fact, two cheques were not presented, and the payments of three cheques were made on different dates. In case, two cheques, given by the complainant towards EMIs , were not presented, by the appellants, it could not be said that he (complainant) was at fault. However, the complainant, as is evident, made payment of those cheques separately, in addition to the payment of other installments. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that not only, the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice by not issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant and continued harassing him. 14. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to the record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
