BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President,<br /> <br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.98/2009<br /> <br /> Order dated this the 23rd day of November 2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S <br /> <br /> Sri.H.B.Manjunatha S/o H.Beeraiah, R/o Hemavathi Extension, K.R.Pet Town, K.R.Pet Taluk.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate)<br /> <br /> -Vs-<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S<br /> <br /> 1. Madhukeshava G.M. Sriram City, Union City Finance Ltd., C/o Sale India Finance and Investment, No.1 1st Floor, 2nd Main, Vasanthanagara, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. The Chief Manager, Sriram City Union City Finance Ltd., No.221, Raipit High Road, Chennai – 04. <br /> <br /> (By Sri.H.S.Nagendra., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 11.08.2009<br /> Date of service of notice to<br /> Opposite parties 24.08.2009<br /> Date of order 23.11.2009<br /> Total Period 2 Months 29 Days<br /> Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay Rs.250/- + Rs.3,992/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant with cost of Rs.500/- within two months.<br /> <br /> Sri.Siddegowda,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had purchased Hero Honda motor bike by availing the loan from the Opposite party Finance Company and he had issued 17 blank cheques for repayment of the installments. On 29.05.2009, the Complainant with an intention of closing down the loan account requested the 1st Opposite party to inform him the outstanding due and 1st Opposite party informed to the Complainant the outstanding due as Rs.11,000/-. The Complainant paid Rs.11,000/- on 19.06.2008 to 1st Opposite party to close the account and 1st Opposite party issued a receipt with a detailed shara on the back. Though the Opposite party had to return the key and the blank cheques and also dis-honoured cheques, if any and inspite of clearance of the loan, the 1st Opposite party sent a cheque on 19.07.2008 for collection and it was dis-honoured for want of insufficient fund and bank has charged a sum of Rs.250/- as cost. Likewise on 10.09.2008 and on 20.10.2008 the Opposite party presented two cheques and got encashment from the account of the Complainant for a sum of Rs.3,992/- totally. This act of the Opposite party is nothing, but a grave deficiency of service. The Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 26.05.2009, for which the Opposite party sent an untenable reply. Therefore, the present complaint is filed claiming Rs.59,242/-. <br /> 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting the loan transaction and issue of the cheques by the Complainant. It is denied that on 29.05.2009, the Complainant sought for the balance due. The last installment expires on 07.10.2008. When the Opposite party informed that the cheque issued by the Complainant was bounced for insufficient fund and the vehicle would be seized, The Complainant quarreled with the collecting agents and threatened them and thereafter, the Complainant along with other persons came in a group to 1st Opposite party Office and threatened as to how can they seize the vehicle and he would pay only Rs.11,000/- and 1st Opposite party did not agree and the Complainant and his men abused and also threatened to lodge a complaint and by force obtained receipt for Rs.11,000/- and also got written the endorsement on the back side and 1st Opposite party informed that no purpose will be served, if receipt for Rs.11,000/- is obtained and the Complainant has to pay balance of Rs.3,992/- and then only the documents would be returned and after some days 1st Opposite party met the Complainant and informed to pay the balance and obtained the documents and as per the say of the Complainant, two cheques were presented and encashed. The allegations made in the legal notice are false and proper reply was sent along with the documents of the vehicle. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.<br /> 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit. The 1st Opposite party is examined and the Complainant has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.6.<br /> 5. We have heard both the sides.<br /> 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:-<br /> 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?<br /> 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-<br /> 8. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainant availed vehicle loan from the Opposite party Finance Company on 07.04.2007 and had issued 17 cheques in favour of the 1st Opposite party for repayment of the installments at the rate of Rs.1,996/-. According to the Complainant, on 29.05.2008 (by mistake typed as 29.05.2009 in the complaint) with an intention to close the loan account requested the 1st Opposite party to inform the outstanding due and 1st Opposite party informed the outstanding due as Rs.11,000/- and on 19.06.2008 he paid Rs.11,000/-, to the 1st Opposite party and 1st Opposite party issued a receipt and on the reverse side of the receipt has made detailed shara. But, the 1st Opposite party sent a cheque on 19.07.2008 for collection and it was bounced for insufficient fund and the bank has charged Rs.250/- as cost and further, the Opposite party presented two cheques of Rs.1,996/- each and got encashed and which amounts to grave deficiency in service. But, according to the Opposite party, the last installment to be paid on 07.04.2007 when the cheque of the Complainant was bounced and informed the Complainant that if the amount is not paid, the vehicle would be seized and then the Complainant threatened the collecting boys. Thereafter, the Complainant with a group came to 1st Opposite party Office and threatened how he could seize the vehicle and he would pay only Rs.11,000/- and abused him and by threatening him obtained a receipt for Rs.11,000/- and 1st Opposite party informed that there is still balance of Rs.3,992/-. After some time, 1st Opposite party met the Complainant demanding the balance amount. The Complainant told to present the cheque and collect and accordingly two cheques were presented and the cheque was encashed and after legal notice, the documents were sent and the Opposite party has not at all collected Rs.3,992/- extra and there is no deficiency in service. <br /> 9. Admittedly, Ex.C.1 receipt has been issued by 1st Opposite party. In the evidence, he has admitted that his advocate sent reply, the Complainant has deposited the entire amount and there is no due and they have sent back the NOC and form no.35. He has admitted that on 19.06.2008 he collected Rs.11,000/- and issued receipt Ex.C.1 and he has admitted the writings Ex.C.1(a) on the back of Ex.C.1, though has deposed that he was not aware of the status of loan as on June from the company. Since, the Complainant forced that he would pay the amount and quarreled he issued the receipt and he has admitted that he has committed mistake by writing endorsement on the back of Ex.C.1 and admitted that he has not lodged any complaint about obtaining Ex.C.1 receipt by threat and force. Even he has not written to the company about this incident, according to him, he orally informed. But, if we peruse Ex.C.1 it cannot be accepted that by threat and force, the 1st Opposite party would be in a position to issue receipt Ex.C.1. If we see the wordings of Ex.C.1(a), it is clear that 1st Opposite party has written in detail for having received Rs.11,000/- against full and final settlement of the loan account and further has written that NOC and form no.35 will be issued on or before 04.07.2008. Therefore, the contention of the Opposite party that Ex.C.1 receipt for obtained by force and threat cannot be accepted at all.<br /> 10. In spite of the clearance of loan as on 19.06.2008, the Opposite party has realized Rs.3,992/- by presenting two cheques on 10.09.2008 and 20.10.2008. It is also admitted that one cheque was presented on 19.06.2008 and it was bounced and the bank has charged Rs.250/- to the Complainant’s account. The presentation of three cheques by the Opposite party, inspite of clearance of the loan by issuing Ex.C.1 receipt by 1st Opposite party, is a clear and grave deficiency of service on the part of the 1st Opposite party. Therefore, we answer the point in favour of the Complainant.<br /> 11. POINT NO.2:- The Complainant has sought for bank charges of Rs.250/- with regard to the dis-honour of the cheque and Rs.3,992/- being the amount of two cheques and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering with interest at 18% p.a. In view of the circumstances of the case, the Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.250/- and Rs.3,992/-. The cost of litigation sought for is exaggerative. The compensation for pain and suffering is also exaggerative. Therefore, it is just and fair to award compensation of Rs.3,000/- for the deficiency in service for pain and suffering and further, the Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.250/- + Rs.3,992/-. Since, the compensation is awarded, interest is not awarded. <br /> 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order;<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is partly allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay Rs.250/- + Rs.3,992/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant with cost of Rs.500/- within two months.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of November 2009).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)