Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking NOC and no due certificate; return of Rs.4750/- being the extra amount collected by the opposite parties; Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and for costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The 1^st opposite party is branch office of the 2^nd opposite party doing finance business for motor vehicles.   The complainant availed loan facility from the 1^st opposite party for purchase of Hero Honda splendor bearing No. AP 07 AM 7415 and executed necessary agreement in favour of the 1^st opposite party.   At the time of agreement the complainant paid Rs.22,846/- to the 1^st opposite party and agreed to pay the remaining loan amount in 24 installments @Rs.1,414/-.   The complainant paid 1^st EMI by way of cash and issued 23 cheques for the remaining installments bearing Nos.529702 to 529724 during the period 07-09-09 to 07-07-11.   The complainant honored the cheques bearing Nos.529702 to 529704 (mistakenly typed as 520702 to 520704).  One of the employees of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant on 28-02-10 and collected cash in respect of cheque numbers 529705 and 529706 without handing over the said cheques.   Again one of the employees of the 1^st opposite party on 24-05-10 collected Rs.3728/- being the amount of two installments including bank charges of Rs.900/-.   Thereafter also employees of the 1^st opposite party collected EMIs by way of cash in advance from the complainant.   Accordingly, the complainant paid installments upto March, 2011 by 30-01-11 itself.   On 19-05-11 the complainant along with employee of the 1^st opposite party went its office.  During discussion with the Branch Manager of the 1^st opposite party to know his arrears of EMIs employees of the 1^st opposite party abruptly took vehicle of the complainant and kept in its godown.   When questioned the employees of the 1^st opposite party stated that vehicle was seized as fell in arrears of Rs.5100/-.   The complainant paid Rs.8500/- on 19-05-11 to the 1^st opposite party and got the vehicle released.   At that time the 1^st opposite party promised that NOC will be given with an endorsement of no dues in ‘C’ book of the vehicle within fifteen days.   On 07-06-11 the complainant demanded the 1^st opposite party to give statement of loan account and NOC.   But employees of the 1^st opposite party gave evasive replies and made the complainant to move around its office.   On 15-02-12 employees of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and demanded to pay Rs.3,000/- alleging due.   The 1^st opposite party collected extra amount more than the amount due.   The complainant maintained sufficient balance with the concerned bank to honour EMI cheques given to the 1^st opposite party. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties for which there was no response.  Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. 

3.  The 2^nd opposite party adopted version of the 1^st opposite

party and their contents in brief is thus:

        The complainant is not a consumer and there is no triable consumer dispute. This Forum therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.  On 29-07-09 the 1^st opposite party sanctioned Rs.26,000/- as loan to the complainant payable in 24 EMIs @Rs.1414/- pm.  The complainant agreed to pay interest at 15.26% p.a.   The complainant executed necessary documents in favour of the 1^st opposite party and availed loan and purchased the said vehicle.   The complainant also hypothecated vehicle in favour of the 1^st opposite party.   As per repayment program the complainant issued 23 post dated cheques to the 1^st opposite party in respect of installments.  The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly installments as he failed to observe agreed repayment schedule.  Continuously sixteen cheques issued by the complainant were bounced.  The complainant honoured five cheques only.  For the remaining installments the complainant paid cash.  In all the complainant paid Rs.29,716/- i.e., 22 installments including penalties.   The complainant still has to pay two installments amounting to Rs.2,828/- besides interest and other penalties.   In all the complainant has to pay Rs.3,585/- as on the date of filing version.   The 1^st opposite party collected EMIs by way of cash from the complainant since the cheques were bounced.   The complainant never provided sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheques.   The 1^st opposite party on 18-05-11 seized complainant’s vehicle as fell in arrears of installments.   The 1^st opposite party on 20-05-11 paid arrears and got released the said vehicle.   Subsequently, the complainant did not pay the remaining installments.   The 1^st opposite party got issued notice on 16-05-12 demanding arrears of two installments.   The 1^st opposite party filed arbitration claim No.648 of 2012 for recovery of Rs.4341/- as the complainant failed to pay the amount due.  Suppressing the above facts the complainant got filed this case with baseless allegations.   The 1^st opposite party never collected extra amount of Rs.4750/- as alleged by the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party has got every right to seize the complainant’s hypothecated vehicle as became due.   The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint is a malafide one.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-18 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-14 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties collected extra amount of Rs.4750/- from the complainant and if so amounted to deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:

        a.  The complainant availed loan from the 1^st opposite party for                         purchase of a two wheeler bearing No.AP07 AM 7415                        (Ex.A-1).

        b.  The complainant agreed to pay the loan amount in 24                                 installments @Rs.1414/- pm and issued twenty three                       post dated        cheques to the 1^st opposite party.

        c.  In May, 2011 the 1^st opposite party seized complainant’s                      hypothecated vehicle.

        d.  The complainant got released the vehicle immediately by                     paying the then arrears of amount as claimed by the                          1^st opposite party.  

        e.  The opposite parties received notice dated 16-02-12 got                      issued by the complainant (Ex.A-15 to A-17).

7.  POINT No.1:-   The contention of the complainant is that he kept sufficient funds with his bank to honour the cheques issued by him and the opposite parties collected Rs.4750/- alleging bouncing of cheques.  The opposite parties contended that 16 cheques issued by the complainant were bounced and therefore collected penal charges from the complainant.   The burden is therefore on the opposite parties to prove that the cheques issued by the complainant were bounced.   To discharge their burden the opposite parties filed copies of cheque return memos issued by their banker and they were marked as              Exs.B-9 to B-14 dated 07-01-11, 07-02-11, 07-04-11, 07-05-11,               07-06-11 and 07-07-11 bearing Nos.529724, 529718, 529720, 529721, 529722, and 529723 respectively.   The reasons mentioned in Exs.B-9 to B-14 for return of cheques are account number differ, funds insufficient, funds insufficient and account number illegible, funds insufficient, account is closed and insufficient funds respectively.  The above endorsements on cheque return memos clearly revealed that the complainant failed to honour the cheques issued to the opposite parties in respect of future installments payable.  If the complainant is aggrieved by its banker in returning cheques though funds available it is for him to initiate action against the concerned bankers.   Therefore the contention of the complainant that he provided sufficient funds with his banker cannot be accepted.  The complainant is quite aware of the opposite parties collecting penal charges alleging bouncing of cheques.  The complainant did not issue any notice to its banker for bouncing of cheques inspite of availability of sufficient funds as seen from the complaint and affidavit of the complainant. It can therefore be held that the complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands. Under those circumstances the contention of the opposite parties that it collected penal charges is having considerable force.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainant.

8.  POINT No.2:-  In view of above findings, the complainant in our considered opinion is not entitled to any compensation.  We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

9. POINT No.3:-  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.           

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 18^th of January, 2013.

          MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For Opposite Party  :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT