HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 12 Aug 2010
ORDER
Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The complainant had cleared outstanding loan account with the present petitioner and had handed over two cheques issued by the State Bank of India for Rs.3,44,651/- and Rs.1,89,628/-. According to the complainant, the OP did not return the title deed nor three blank cheques, which had been earlier taken, in spite of clearance of all loan amounts due. Accordingly, the complainant had approached District Forum where no one appeared on behalf of the OP/petitioner in spite of service and the District Forum ordered return of three blank cheques as also original title deed of the property and directed compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the OP/petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission held that it appeared unbelievable if the appellants were not served. Even then the State Commission asked the Counsel for the appellants/OP to place their version before it so that the matter could be decided on merits instead of remanding the same to the District Forum. Before the State Commission it was urged by the OP/petitioner that the complainant had issued cheque for Rs.11,885/- dated 21.10.2005, which was dishonoured and as on 19.3.2010, a sum of Rs.12,267/- was outstanding against the respondents. The State Commission found that statement of account (Ex.C-4) had been given by the appellants/OP and as per the said statement, a sum of Rs.3,44,651/- and Rs.1,89,628/- was outstanding in respect of which, two cheques for the said amount were handed over to the OP/petitioner on 21.10.2009 on account of which, the loan amount stood cleared. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the cheque for Rs.11,885/- was in respect of foreclosure of the account which was issued by the complainant which had been dishonoured on account of which, the title deed was not returned to the complainant. The State Commission came to the conclusion that if the said amount of Rs.11,885/- was outstanding then the same should have been reflected in the statement of account. The State Commission in the given circumstances found that the blank cheque taken from the complainant had been filled. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Bare look of the said cheque for Rs.11,885/- would show that date and pay to HDFC Ltd. is in different handwriting and the amount in words and figures is in different handwriting and the signatures are totally different. Though the comparison of the handwriting in this cheque and the other two cheques by the State Commission was not correct as the other two cheques had been issued by the State Bank of India and obviously the handwriting would differ, yet the State Commission has accepted the theory of blank cheque having been filled by the officials of the bank, which is acceptable. In the statement of account (Ex.C-4 & C-5), the total amount due as on 21.10.2009 is shown by the petitioner/respondent as Rs.3,44,651/- and Rs.1,89,628/-. Admittedly, on the same day, the said amounts were paid and the said amounts were cleared. If any foreclosure charges were still due, the same should have been reflected in the statement or at least a note should have been made by the officials of the bank on Ex.C-4 & Ex. C-5 while accepting the cheques. The complainant had sent legal notice on 12.11.2009 clearly stating that the petitioner had obtained three blank cheques and sought return of the same as also title deed of the property, but it appears that the petitioner/OP did not give any reply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept the case of the complainant that three blank cheques had been obtained by the petitioner, one of which was filled and then presented resulting in dishonour. It appears that the petitioner did not reconcile with the shifting of the loan account from the petitioner to State Bank of India and the blank cheque was utilized to withhold the title deed of the property. The order of the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum, therefore, does not call for any interference. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
