Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

          Instant Complaint u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved with the awarding of allegedly inadequate and meagre amounts of cost and compensation by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order No. 37 dated 03.12.2014 passed in CDF/Unit-I Case No. 295 of 2009, in spite of the fact that the deficiency on the part of the Respondent/OP No. 2 were conclusively proved.

          On perusal of the operative part of the order, it came apparent that the Ld. District Forum directed the Respondent/OP No. 2 to pay litigation cost and compensation to the tunes of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively after receiving from the Appellant/Complainant Rs. 4,725/-, being the amount which remained unrealized from the Appellant/Complainant by the Respondent/OP No. 2 Bank, as one of the 59 cheques of like amount was dishonoured.

          The brief facts of the case were that the Appellant/Complainant received a car loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing a Maruti 800 AC car from the Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank as per terms and conditions laid down in the Purchase Agreement. The Appellant/Complainant made payment of an initial amount of Rs. 45,588/-, being the total amount of Rs. 38,408/-, Rs. 4,725/- and Rs.2,455/- as margin money, advance instalment and processing charge respectively. The Appellant/Complainant was supposed to pay the residual balance in 59 number of instalments, each at the rate of Rs. 4,725/- which meant, in order to ensure full repayment, the Complainant was supposed to pay a total amount of Rs.3,24,363/-. The Appellant/Complainant had to hand over accordingly 59 number of post dated cheques, all for an amount of Rs. 4,725/- only.

          Meanwhile the assets and liabilities of the Respondent/OP No. 1 were handed over to the Respondent/OP No. 2 and the matter was communicated making formal reference to the Appellant/Complainant.

          As alleged in the complaint, the Respondent/OP No. 2, even after releasing the entire balance through encashment of 59 number of post dated cheques, did not issue the NOC to the Appellant/Complainant who, meanwhile, was transferred to Nagaon, Assam. The vehicle which was giving trouble to the Appellant/Complainant going out of order frequently and was needed disposal, could not be disposed of for its not being freed from hypothecation. The Appellant/Complainant’s persuasion through repeated communications from a distant place, by approaching physically the concerned Bank undertaking long journey and even by issuing of legal notice for the desired NOC being gone in vain, the Appellant/Complainant filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum. The impugned judgment and order which has been challenged in the instant Appeal arose from the said Complaint Case.

          The Appellant was heard ex-parte against the Respondent/OPs.

          The Appellant/Complainant too did not submit anything in addition to what was stated in his BNA.

          Perused the papers on record. Considered the BNA filed by the Appellant/Complainant. We don’t need to discuss on any point raised against the complaint in the W.V of the Respondent/OP No. 2 since the order in the Complaint Case passed taking into consideration all those aspects, remained uncontroverted from his side. No Appeal was preferred by the Respondent/OP No. 2 against the impugned judgment and order and the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant, remained uncontested by the Respondent/OP No. 2.

          In the W.V, running page 41, inner page 6, the Respondent/OP No. 2 admitted that the Appellant/Complainant had paid 58 EMIs out of 59 EMIs each of Rs. 4,725/-. Therefore, it was of no confusion that the instalment allegedly defaulted by the Appellant/Complainant was of Rs.4,725/- only. The question is whether it was an intended default? The Record revealed that there was a steady repayment of loan. 58 number of post dated cheques out of 59 were encashed without any hassle. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that there was no intentional shortcoming in the cheque in question.

          We perused the cheque dated 16.06.2002, running page 61, which was seen to have returned unpaid for reason “ full cover not received”, running page 60. It was expected that the intimation about the subject cheque’s non-encashment should be sent to the Appellant/Complainant by the Respondent/OP No. 2. We did not see any communication from the Respondent/OP No. 2 to that effect nor did we find indication of any action otherwise contemplated to be taken by the Respondent/OP No. 2. The circumstances led us to believe that the Appellant/Complainant had no lapse for a particular postdated cheque, out of the total 59 number of such cheques, all issued at the same time in the same manner, being dishonoured.

          Considered the prayer of the Appellant/Complainant praying for enhancement of the cost and compensation. The BNA contains some copies of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court on some innocent and undisputed point in connection with the instant issue. The claim of refund of the entire loan amount with interest appeared to be absolutely unreasonable.

          A reimbursement of repairing charge to the extent of Rs. 2,75,000/- without any supporting documents towards the execution repairing, as claimed, raised question about the bona fide of the claim. One should not forget about an obvious necessity for periodic repairing of a 10 year old vehicle.

          We, however, intend to care for the physical harassment and mental agony that the Appellant/Complainant had to suffer from, particularly after shifting his establishment from Kolkata to Assam. Although, we do not agree with an inflated claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, we are also not at one with the compensation to be so low as 10,000/- as directed in the impugned order compared to the gravity of the deficiency on the part of the Respondent/OP No. 2 Bank.

          Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are inclined to enhance the amount of compensation passed in the impugned order from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. We also intend to modify the impugned judgment and order a little on some more points.

              Hence,

                                                Ordered

          that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part against Respondent/OP No. 2 and dismissed against Respondent/OP No. 1. Respondent/OP No. 2 is directed to issue the NOC in respect of car loan account No. 354193 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of payment of Rs. 4,725/- only from the Appellant/Complainant and it is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- only for his deficiency causing physical harassment and mental agony to the Appellant/Complainant. It is also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant.

          Entire amount has to be paid within 45 days from the date of the instant order, failing which, an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the compensation part, that is, Rs. 30,000/- only from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The impugned order stands modified accordingly.