SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for a direction to return the vehicle ceased from the complainant by the opp.parties, for issuing statements of account ,to pay compensation etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complain ant has availed a loan from the opp.parties for purchasing a TATA AACE vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2Z-7148 At the time of availing loan the complainant was forced to sign several blank papers and unfilled form and also to issue signed cheques. Due to the emergent need of funds the complainant had submitted all the required documents. The opp.parties were not properly rendering service . The cheques issued by the complainant in advance were not presented for collection to the bank and false intimation was given to the complainant that the cheque was bounced. The complainant on verifying the accounts found that there was sufficient funds to honour the cheque from which it is obvious that the opp.parties had not presented the cheques. Thereafter the complainant had remitted the instalemnt in cash and requested to return the bounced cheque. But the opp.parties did not return the same alleging that they have to get sanction from the opp.parties head office. Because of these the complainant stopped remitting further instalments. While so, on 30.7.2008 the opp.parties without issuing any notice ceased forcibly took possession of the vehicle with the help of hired goondas, and obtained his signature in an unfilled printed form. The complainant though intimated his readyness to remit the entire dues on issuance of a statement of accounts the opp.parties did not issue the same . Even now the complainant is willing to pay the entire amount. The act of the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from the opp.party’s bank. The opp.party’s bank is rendering credible service to its customers. Since the mode of payment is through cheques of another bank in favour of the ICICI bank those were properly sent for collection. But on several occasions cheques were bounced for want of funds in the account of the complainant. The complainant never demanded to return the bounced cheques as alleged. The complainant defaulted the instalment payments and only to justify his default such an allegation is raised. When seven monthly instalments fell in arrears the bank sent a defaulting letter to the complainant on 30.6.08 reminding him to make immediate payment. The notice was accepted by the complainant. He did not make any payment. During the last week of July 2008 the complainant informed the bank that he cannot effect payment and expressed his willingness to surrender the vehicle voluntarily. On 30.7.2008 the complainant handed over the key of the vehicle to the collecting officer of the bank, and he duly signed the letter of surrender also. The opp.party has not resorted to any illegal means for taking possession of the vehicle. The complainant never filed any complaint till date before police or any other authority that the vehicle was taken away by illegal means. The opp.parties did not show any reluctance to issue statement of accounts pertaining to the complainant. The complainant never approached the bank for the same. The bank is ready and willing to issue statement of accounts to the complainant at any time. Since several instalments fell in arrears and after the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle the bank issued a pre sale letter to the complainant by registered post with acknowledgement due and the same was accepted by him. The bank is entitled to realize the amount through sale and there is nothing against the terms of agreements between the parties. The complainant is a defaulter to the tune of Rs.2,02,757/- and he is now trying to take advantage on the default by preferring g a frivolous complaint. After the voluntary surrender of the vehicle and after possession of asset by the bank the loan agreement of the complainant with the bank was terminated on 30.7.2008 The complainant did nothing before the date stipulated in the notice.. There is no prima facie case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.parties. POINTS: There is no dispute that the complainant has availed a loan from the opp.party for the purchase of a vehicle for Rs.2,20,000/- which was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalment at the rate of Rs. 6,123/- each per month. The case of the complainant is that he has issue 48 cheques for repayment of the loan amount but the bank did not present the cheques to his bank and gave false information that the cheque was bounced. Thereupon the complainant approach the opp.party and make payment of the amount of the cheque alleged to have been bounced and paid the amount of the cheque in cash as per Ext.P1. Thereafter the complainant requested the opp.party to return that the cheque which is alleged to have been bounced but the opp.parties did not return the same saying that they have to obtain sanction from the head office. But so far the cheques alleged to have been bounced were not returned to the complainant and thereupon the complainant refrained from remitting the further instalments It is the case of the complainant that on 30.7.08 the opp.party forcibly seized and taken the possession of the vehicle purchasd by him utilizing the loan with their goondas who threatened him and obtained his signature in a blank printed form. The opp.party during cross examination of PW.1 has suggested that the complainant has voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to them as he was unable to repay the loan amount and the absence of an immediate complainant before the police would establish that as part. . The complainant’s case that when the opp.parties have taken away his vehicle using hired goondas, he approach the opp.party and making attempts to settle the matter and while so it was learned that the opp.parties are making preparation to sell the vehicle and therefore he filed this complaint before this Forum and before the police evidence by Ext.P3.. There is nothing to disbelieve PW.1 in this regard. Had PW.1 surrendered the vehicle he would not have filed the complaint before this Forum and the police. Ext.P5 is the statement of accounts of the complainant issued from his bank the Syndicate Bank, Kundara Branch. On a perusal to Ext.P5 it can be seen that from 1.1.2007 onwards there was sufficient balance in his account to honour his cheques. Had the cheques been presented by the opp.party for collection to the complainant’s bank, there is no reason why the cheques have been dis honoured and returned for want of sufficient funds. No material or explanation in this regard is forthcoming from the opp.parties. It is a pertinent to point out in this context that other than cross examining PW.1 . Opp.party did not adduce any evidence. During the cross examination it was suggested that they have issued a registered notice demanding the amount which was denied by PW.1. The suggestion that they have issued a free sale letter to PW.1 was also denied by PW1. However no postal receipt or other evidence for having issued such letters was produced by the opp.party, from which the only inference that can be drawn is that no such letters were issued. As point out earlier . Ext.P5 prima-facie shows that there was sufficient funds in the bank account of the complainant to honour the cheque issued by him to the opp.party and if the cheques were not encashed it can be inferred that the same were not presented. These aspects lent support to the contention of the complainant that the opp.party without presenting the cheque for collection was falsely stating that the cheques were dis honoured and collected dishonour charges and overdue charges. It is also pertinent to point out that no dishonour memo or any material was produced to establish that the cheques presented by the opp.parties were dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the complainant. From the evidence now before us we have no hestitation to hold that the contention of the complaint that the cheques have not been presented by the opp.parties and collected bouncing charges and overdue charges is true which amounts to deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to return the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2Z-7148 to the complainant forthwith and to furnish the statements of accounts to the complainant excluding overdue charges and cheque bouncing charges within a period of one month and the complainant shall close the loan as per the statement within two months of receipt of statement of accounts. The opp.parties are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date this order. Dated this the 28TH day ofMay,2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant: PW.1. – Radhakrishnan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Copy of payment receipt P2. – Acknowledgement P3. – Complaint filed before Police Station, Kundara P4. – Copy of Statement P5. – Statement of complaint | 
