PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      It is 11.00 A.M.  Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amitabh Marwah is present.  The respondent/complainant has shown his inability to attend the case.  We hereby appoint Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate, 1/1-B, First Floor, Jangpura-B, New Delhi-110014, Mobile -08595457674, as Amicus Curiae to assist this Commission on behalf of the respondent.  He is issued paper book.  He also be disbursed Rs. 7,500/- towards out-of-pocket expenses.

2.      Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Amicus Curiae wants to go through the Revision Petition.  Case will be taken up again at 12-45 P.M.

3.      It is 12-45 P.M.  Counsel for the parties present.  Arguments heard.  The complainant, Sh. T. Abdul Jaleel  purchased a  vehicle from M/s KVR Dream Vehicle Kannur under the Finance of Tata Motors Finance Company Ltd. The complainant issued 20 signed blank cheques in favour of Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Kannur.  The case of the OP-1/petitioner is that 12 cheques were returned due to mismatch of the signatures of the complainant with the specimen signatures available with the OP-2 –HDFC Bank, Kannur.  The Bank had charged Rs. 400/- for the each bounced cheque, amounting to Rs. 3600/- (at that time, for 9 bounced cheques).  According to the petitioner, Rs. 1200/-  were charged towards the dishonoured charges, Rs. 16925/- towards overdue instalment,          Rs. 1677.64 as overdue charges and towards expenses Rs. 1650/- totalling to Rs. 20,452.64 is due from the complainant, excluding the instalments.

4.      Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, wherein the following prayers were made:-

“5.        The cause of action for this complaint arose on 02.06.2010 when the cheque No. 306107 signed by the complainant was returned back due to reason “sign mismatch”.

Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to:

1. To return all the return cheques which were dishonoured due to the reason “sign mismatch.
2. To order substitute the remaining with fresh cheques or return  back all the cheques and documents of vehicle in closure of the loan amount by receiving correct amount only.
3. To restrain the OP1 from cheque return charges from the complainant on dishonoured cheques for the reason “sing mismatch”.
4. To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant, and;
5. Such other reliefs which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5.      Opposite Party No. 2-  Manager, HDFC Bank, Kannur in his version,

Contended that the cheques were returned as signatures in those cheques did not match with the specimen signatures available with the Bank.

6.      The District Forum, after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed

the following order:-

To the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.”

7.      Aggrieved by that order, the Opposite Party filed an appeal before the State Commission.  However, it is very strange that the State Commission presided over by Justice  Sri P.Q. Barkath Ali, President, passed a very strange order.  Para Nos. 9 & 10 of the order of the State Commission are reproduced here as under:-

“9.   The appellant/first opposite party has no explanation to offer for not returning the dishonoured cheques to the complainant.  The complainant as PW1 would say that if those dishonoured cheques were returned he would have issued fresh cheques or paid the amount and that the conduct of the appellant/first opposite party in not returning the dishonoured  cheques is unfair trade practice.  Specific case of the complainant is that there was no difference between his signature in the cheques and the specimen signature in the bank.  Second opposite party also did not produce the specimen signature.  All these facts clearly show that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and 2^nd opposite party.  The Forum has directed the opposite parties to return all the cheques including the dishonoured cheques and documents of the vehicle by receiving the actual amount of the cheques and ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 1000/-.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

10.   There is another aspect in this case.  At the time of hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the dishonoured cheques as well as the blank signed cheques given by the complainant were misplaced and that they are not in a position to return the same to the complainant.  Under these circumstances we are of the view that appellant/1^st opposite party has to pay compensation to the complainant and also return all the documents of the vehicle to the complainant.  Total financial assistance availed by the complainant is Rs. 3,55,000/-.  That being so we feel that a compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- would be reasonable in this case which shall be adjusted towards the loan amount due to the appellant/1^st opposite party.  First opposite party shall return all the documents of the vehicle of the complainant to him within one month from this day.”

8.      It is apparent that the order passed by the State Commission is unreasonable, perverse and unsustainable, it therefore means that the complainant can get the amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- +documents of  vehicle, which will also include the 40 instalments which have already been paid. The State Commission has tried to give the vehicle free of costs to the complainant for which there was no dispute at all.  The judgment rendered by the State Commission slurred over, the important fact how the complainant will repay the money, which he took on loan.  The amenability of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside by passing such like illegal orders.

9.      The State Commission itself has mentioned in its para No. 4 that  12 cheques were returned as signatures did not tally with the specimen signatures available with them.  The deficiency on the part of the petitioner M/s Tata Motors is only to the extent of wee bit.  They should have informed the OP that the cheques are dis-honoured and the same were being sent to him for issuing fresh cheques.  It is, however, stated that on 13.06.2011, this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant.

10.    In view of the above, the OP-1 need not return the bounced cheques.  The contention of the petitioner is that all the cheques have been lost.  All the cheques are missing. O.P. No. 1 is, therefore, directed to issue a certificate that the cheques have been lost.  They cannot return the same and the complainant will pay the money for that i.e an amount of Rs. 5915/- X 20 =Rs.1,18,300/- and pay the amount of the dis-honoured cheques in the sum of Rs. 3600/-.  He is further directed to pay interest @ 9% from the date of dishonoured of cheques, till its recovery. Thereafter, petitioner can return all the documents to the complainant, after receipt of this amount.

11.    Revision Petition stands disposed of.