DOF.22.9.09

DOO. 1.11.10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 1^st  day of November   2010

CC.No.251 /2009

M.V.Narayanan,

Krishna Kripa,

Uruvachal,

P.O.Chovva, Kannur 6.

(Rep. by Adv.R.P.Remesan)                                Complainant

1. The Branch Manger,

   ICICI Bank Ltd.,

   Kozhikode.

2. The Branch Manger,                                       Opposite parties

   ICICI Bank Ltd.,

    Kannur.

  (Rep. by Adv.Rajesh V Nair)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to return the unused signed cheques to the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.25, 000/- towards the mental agony and cost of these proceedings.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant availed loan from 1^st opposite party through 2nd opposite party for purchasing his car. As directed by 1^st opposite party he had handed over 59 signed cheque leaves for payment. He foreclosed the loan on 19.6.09 remitting an amount of

Rs.1, 22,270.75. On foreclosure of loan account the complainant is entitled to get back the unused cheque leaves and the 1^st opposite party has agreed to return the same. But the same is not returned so far. Complainant sent lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party. But 1^st opposite party neither send the reply nor returned the unused cheque. He approached the 1^st opposite party on many occasion for getting the signed cheque leaves back but 1^st opposite party was not ready to give it back. Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice 2nd opposite party entered appearance and field version.  1^st opposite party remained absent and subsequently set exparte. 2^nd opposite party filed version stating as follows: Complainant had availed loan facility from the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to get back the unused cheques. As per the policy of the bank the cheques received from the customer will not be returned after closing loan. The bank usually cancels the cheque given by the customer. Therefore bank is not in a position to return the cheque to complainant. Opposite party did not agree to return the cheque. There is no malafide intention on the side of opposite party. Complainant did not approach the opposite party in any occasion to get back the cheque. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

    Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy as

    Prayed in the complaint?

         3. Relief and cost.

          The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1to A5. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the part of opposite party.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant availed loan from 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party and issued 59 blank signed cheque leaves for making payment. Complainant paid entire amount and foreclosed the loan account on 19.6.09. It is also admitted that even after closing the account after paying the entire amount opposite parties did not return the unused signed cheque leaves. Lawyer notice sent but opposite party did not reply it.

          The only defense that has been taken by the opposite party is that as per the policy of the bank the cheque received from the customer will not be returned after closing the loan. The bank usually cancels the cheque. So bank is not in a position to return the cheque.

          Complainant adduced both oral and documentary. The entire case of the complainant had been admitted by 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party really speaks for both opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite party neither adduced oral evidence nor documentary to support the contention taken by opposite party.

          Complainant’s case is proved beyond doubt by the evidence adduced by the complainant as well as by the admission of opposite party. Opposite party has not denied the issuance of cheque leaves. Opposite party has no case that they have returned unused cheque leaves. The central point is that of return of unused cheque leaves. The ultimate analysis reveals that it is nothing but the policy of bank that prevented them from returning the unused cheque leaves. The usual practice is canceling the cheque leaves and not returning it. There is no other reason pointed out by the opposite party in keeping the same with them.  Opposite party did not explain the logic and law behind the policy followed by the bank not to return the unused cheque leaves to customer but only canceling it.  After all what is the evidence to show that the cheque leaves are cancelled. What is the legal justification in keeping the signed cheque leaves of the customer. What is the guarantee that the unused cheque will not be misused? How can the misuse be ruled out? There is no explanation for these questions from the side of opposite party. Opposite party did not answer the lawyer notice sent by complainant. There is no explanation. This is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties have no right to keep unused cheque leaves of complainant unnecessarily? The cheques were issued for specific purpose and opposite party has the legal obligatin to return the unused cheque leaves after the performance of the purpose for it is issued. The very purpose for which the signed cheque leaves were issued had been discharged by immediately foreclosing the loan account. So also right to keep the same also automatically comes to an end. What is the reason stated by opposite party for not returning the cheque.  Opposite party stated in their version thus: The bank usually cancels the cheque given by the customer. Therefore   bank is not in a position to return the cheque to the complainant”. There is no answer whether the cheque leaves belonged to complainant has cancelled or not. Even if it is the usual practice there is no evidence to show that it is cancelled. There is nothing unusual if the complainant is under tension with respect to unused cheque in the custody of opposite party. Opposite party has lost the right to keep the cheque immediately when the loan was discharged. The possession of unused cheque that belongs to complainant with the opposite party became illegal when opposite party received the lawyer notice calling upon to return the unused signed blank cheque leaves. If he was in any way unable to return the cheque opposite party should have replied the notice then and there stating the real facts. It is difficult to understand the reason why opposite parties are reluctant to return the same knowing well that it is the property of complainant free from legal tie up.

          In the light of the above discussion we find deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is entitled for getting the unused signed blank cheque leaves together with the compensation. We are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to return the cheque leaves or else Rs.20, 000/- together with a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.1000/- as cost of these proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed  directing the opposite parties to return the unused signed blank cheque leaves or else Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only)  instead of the same together with Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the  complainant is entitled to  execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                        Sd/-                   Sd/-                  Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP dt.27.7.09

A2.Postal acknowledgement card

A3. Copy of prepayment schedule.

A4. Copy of payment schedule.

A5. Copy of statements of accounts.

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

/forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.