The Branch Manager, Fultron India Credit Company Ltd., V/S Sri. Srinivas S/o. Ramayya - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/55

Sri. Srinivas S/o. Ramayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Fultron India Credit Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.K. Purohit

22 Dec 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/55

Sri. Srinivas S/o. Ramayya						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, Fultron India Credit Company Ltd., Fultron India Credit Company Ltd.,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Srinivas against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to him and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred with cost and direct the opposites to withdraw two cheques for Rs. 25,000/- paid to the Syndicate Bank with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he borrowed loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- from opposite No-1 bank which is the repayable in the monthly installments of Rs. 1,688/-, at the time of advancing loan he handed over (19) blank cheques of Syndicate Bank, Raichur to the opposites for to en-cash the cheques on every month to satisfy installments. He paid first installments in cash on 07-01-08, thereafter opposite No-1 collected monthly installments by producing cheques for the months of February, March, April, May, June and July-2008, thereafter he paid amount directly towards other two installments for the months of August and September 2008. He had sufficient funds in his account of Syndicate Bank, Raichur, but opposite No-1 issued letter dt. 24-01-09 asking him for to make all due amount of Rs. 5,064/- he approached opposite No-1 bank regarding clarification and to correct the amount payable by him, but he presented a cheque dt. 30-03-09 to the Syndicate Bank for Rs. 25,000/- it clearly shows that opposite No-1 mis utilizing the cheques given by him with an intention to cause harm, it requested the opposite No-1 to correct their account, but neither opposite No-1 nor opposite No-2 rectified the mistakes committed by them and thereafter it issued demand notice, as such this complaint is filed for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate and filed written versions by denying all the allegations made by the complainant against them and contended that the first cheque presented to Syndicate Bank on 05-01-08 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds therefore complainant personally paid installments in cash on 07-01-08, thereafter he regularly not paid installments. In the 7th installments he committed default as there was no sufficient fund in his account, thereafter he paid two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008, as such it is very much clear that the complainant is the defaulter in payment of regular installments. Several notices were issued to him, not answered, he not approached the Bank for making payment of such installments and thereby it issued demand notice for to pay the balance amount outstanding in his account, there was no negligence on its part, it is the fault of the complainant in not making payment, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he gave (19) advanced cheques to opposite No-1 for deduction of monthly installments towards loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- borrowed by him by paying the first installment in cash vide Receipt No. 191857 dt. 07-01-08 and for payment of installment for the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2008 through cheques and direct payment in respect of the installments of August and September, but opposite No-1 presented his cheque on 30-03-09 for Rs. 25,000/- to the Syndicate Bank for encashment in spite of the payment of regular installments by him only with an intention to harass, thereafter it shown its negligence in rectifying mistakes in his account and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager of RMMFICC Ltd., was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. In the present case it is undisputed fact that the complainant being the customer of opposite No-1 company obtained loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- from opposite No-1 repayable in installments of Rs. 1,688/- per month vide counter folio Ex.P-1. It is further undisputed fact that the complainant gave (19) blank cheques of Syndicate Bank to opposite No-1 for to encash the monthly installments of the loan by it. It is further undisputed fact that the payment of first installment made by the complainant in cash on 07-01-08. It is also the fact that he paid two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008 vide acknowledgement receipt Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3. 7. The case of the complainant is that the first cheque of him for the month of February 2008 sent by the opposite No-1 to the Syndicate Bank for collection was honoured and it was deducted in his account towards one monthly installment. Further it is his case that the installments for the months of February, March, April, May, June and July 2008 opposite No-1 collected the amount through his cheques from Syndicate Bank. He further contended that he paid directly two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008. He further contended that in spite of all the monthly payments made by him, opposite No-1 presented cheque for Rs. 25,000/- dt. 30-03-09 before the Syndicate Bank for collection, no such amount is required to be paid by him. 8. As per his contention totally he paid seven monthly installments out of these payments four installments by way of cheques and three installments directly by depositing the amount in the bank of opposites. 9. The opposite No-1 admitted payment of installments dt. 07-01-08 by cash, it also admitted the payment of installments for the months of August and September 2008 in cash. 10. Now the dispute in between the parties as regards to the payments of installments for the months of April, May, June and July 2008 and with the due amount shown in the demand notice by Respondent No-1. 11. Ex.P-5 Account Extract maintained by the Syndicate Bank in respect of the Account of complainant shows that opposite No-1 en-cashed by cheque for one installment on 07-08-08, collection of other installments dt. 05-08-08, 06-03-08 and 05-04-08 by presenting the cheques to the Syndicate Bank Raichur. This aspect of the case of complainant not denied by the opposite No-1 Bank, so it is very much clear that complainant paid installments for the months of January, February, March, April, June, July, August, September, he not paid installments of May, October, November & December. Hence he paid totally (8) installments and not paid (4) installments, in view of the fact, it is very much clear that complainant was the defaulter in making payment of the loan amount as per the loan agreement Ex.R-2. Demand notice Ex.P-4 dt. 24-01-09 shows the due amount of Rs. 5,064/-. The main allegation of the complainant for to file this complaint is that opposite No-1 Bank has presented the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in spite of regular payment made by him, it is threatening to file the case U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act. On perusal of the documentary evidences mainly the account extract Ex.P-5 not disclosed the fact that opposite No-1 presented the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- and it was dishonored by Syndicate Bank, Raichur. There are no other documentary evidences in supports of this allegation. Ex.R-2 is a loan agreement, as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement complainant not repaid the loan amount, accordingly opposite No-1 issued demand notice at Ex.P-4 by showing the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,064/-. The complainant not stated as to how this amount shown in demand notice Ex.P-4 is illegal or otherwise it is against to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement Ex.R-2. Admittedly the complainant not paid four installments of Rs. 1,688/- each, in view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant approached this Forum without making any kind of payment towards four installments due and thereby we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite No-1 in issuing demand notice Ex.P-4, accordingly we answered Point No.1in Negative. 12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly Point No-2 answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-12-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Srinivas against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to him and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred with cost and direct the opposites to withdraw two cheques for Rs. 25,000/- paid to the Syndicate Bank with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he borrowed loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- from opposite No-1 bank which is the repayable in the monthly installments of Rs. 1,688/-, at the time of advancing loan he handed over (19) blank cheques of Syndicate Bank, Raichur to the opposites for to en-cash the cheques on every month to satisfy installments. He paid first installments in cash on 07-01-08, thereafter opposite No-1 collected monthly installments by producing cheques for the months of February, March, April, May, June and July-2008, thereafter he paid amount directly towards other two installments for the months of August and September 2008. He had sufficient funds in his account of Syndicate Bank, Raichur, but opposite No-1 issued letter dt. 24-01-09 asking him for to make all due amount of Rs. 5,064/- he approached opposite No-1 bank regarding clarification and to correct the amount payable by him, but he presented a cheque dt. 30-03-09 to the Syndicate Bank for Rs. 25,000/- it clearly shows that opposite No-1 mis utilizing the cheques given by him with an intention to cause harm, it requested the opposite No-1 to correct their account, but neither opposite No-1 nor opposite No-2 rectified the mistakes committed by them and thereafter it issued demand notice, as such this complaint is filed for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate and filed written versions by denying all the allegations made by the complainant against them and contended that the first cheque presented to Syndicate Bank on 05-01-08 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds therefore complainant personally paid installments in cash on 07-01-08, thereafter he regularly not paid installments. In the 7th installments he committed default as there was no sufficient fund in his account, thereafter he paid two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008, as such it is very much clear that the complainant is the defaulter in payment of regular installments. Several notices were issued to him, not answered, he not approached the Bank for making payment of such installments and thereby it issued demand notice for to pay the balance amount outstanding in his account, there was no negligence on its part, it is the fault of the complainant in not making payment, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he gave (19) advanced cheques to opposite No-1 for deduction of monthly installments towards loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- borrowed by him by paying the first installment in cash vide Receipt No. 191857 dt. 07-01-08 and for payment of installment for the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2008 through cheques and direct payment in respect of the installments of August and September, but opposite No-1 presented his cheque on 30-03-09 for Rs. 25,000/- to the Syndicate Bank for encashment in spite of the payment of regular installments by him only with an intention to harass, thereafter it shown its negligence in rectifying mistakes in his account and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager of RMMFICC Ltd., was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. In the present case it is undisputed fact that the complainant being the customer of opposite No-1 company obtained loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- from opposite No-1 repayable in installments of Rs. 1,688/- per month vide counter folio Ex.P-1. It is further undisputed fact that the complainant gave (19) blank cheques of Syndicate Bank to opposite No-1 for to encash the monthly installments of the loan by it. It is further undisputed fact that the payment of first installment made by the complainant in cash on 07-01-08. It is also the fact that he paid two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008 vide acknowledgement receipt Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3. 7. The case of the complainant is that the first cheque of him for the month of February 2008 sent by the opposite No-1 to the Syndicate Bank for collection was honoured and it was deducted in his account towards one monthly installment. Further it is his case that the installments for the months of February, March, April, May, June and July 2008 opposite No-1 collected the amount through his cheques from Syndicate Bank. He further contended that he paid directly two installments in cash for the months of August and September 2008. He further contended that in spite of all the monthly payments made by him, opposite No-1 presented cheque for Rs. 25,000/- dt. 30-03-09 before the Syndicate Bank for collection, no such amount is required to be paid by him. 8. As per his contention totally he paid seven monthly installments out of these payments four installments by way of cheques and three installments directly by depositing the amount in the bank of opposites. 9. The opposite No-1 admitted payment of installments dt. 07-01-08 by cash, it also admitted the payment of installments for the months of August and September 2008 in cash. 10. Now the dispute in between the parties as regards to the payments of installments for the months of April, May, June and July 2008 and with the due amount shown in the demand notice by Respondent No-1. 11. Ex.P-5 Account Extract maintained by the Syndicate Bank in respect of the Account of complainant shows that opposite No-1 en-cashed by cheque for one installment on 07-08-08, collection of other installments dt. 05-08-08, 06-03-08 and 05-04-08 by presenting the cheques to the Syndicate Bank Raichur. This aspect of the case of complainant not denied by the opposite No-1 Bank, so it is very much clear that complainant paid installments for the months of January, February, March, April, June, July, August, September, he not paid installments of May, October, November & December. Hence he paid totally (8) installments and not paid (4) installments, in view of the fact, it is very much clear that complainant was the defaulter in making payment of the loan amount as per the loan agreement Ex.R-2. Demand notice Ex.P-4 dt. 24-01-09 shows the due amount of Rs. 5,064/-. The main allegation of the complainant for to file this complaint is that opposite No-1 Bank has presented the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in spite of regular payment made by him, it is threatening to file the case U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act. On perusal of the documentary evidences mainly the account extract Ex.P-5 not disclosed the fact that opposite No-1 presented the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- and it was dishonored by Syndicate Bank, Raichur. There are no other documentary evidences in supports of this allegation. Ex.R-2 is a loan agreement, as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement complainant not repaid the loan amount, accordingly opposite No-1 issued demand notice at Ex.P-4 by showing the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,064/-. The complainant not stated as to how this amount shown in demand notice Ex.P-4 is illegal or otherwise it is against to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement Ex.R-2. Admittedly the complainant not paid four installments of Rs. 1,688/- each, in view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant approached this Forum without making any kind of payment towards four installments due and thereby we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite No-1 in issuing demand notice Ex.P-4, accordingly we answered Point No.1in Negative. 12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly Point No-2 answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-12-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.