This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return all the cheque and to pay a sum of  `50,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:  Complainant  purchased a vehicle from KVR Dream Vehicles, Kannur on 21.12.2009 under the Finance of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The complainant issued 20 blank signed cheque bearing number 306103 to 306122 to KVR Dream Vehicle. Opposite party later informed the complainant that cheque bearing number 306107 drawn from the opposite party NO.2 was dishonoured due to sign mismatch.  According to 1^st opposite party another cheque 306109 did not produce for reason of sign mismatch. Other cheques dt.2.4.2010 and 2.7.2010 and earlier cheques were dishonoured by 2^nd opposite party. 1^st oppospit party has collected 400 each from him in two occasions for cheque return charges. Opposite party claims that there is a balance of `3850 pending towards the cheque return charge but the complainant has to pay only `955 towards the balance of cheque return charge. Even after legal notice and oral submission, the opposite party produced cheque. So complainant actually not liable to pay any of the cheque returns charge. Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version separately. Opposite party contended as follows: Complainant entered into a loan cum hypothecation –cum guarantee agreement dated 28.12.2009 with the opposite party for availing a financial assistance of `2,50,000. Complainant has also agreed to pay finance charges of `1, 05,000.As per terms complainant has to pay `6015 for the first instalment and `5,915 for the rest 59 instalments from 2812.2009 to 2.12.2014. Complainant was liable to pay a total amount of `3,55,000 . A total of 9 cheques had been dishonoured by the second opposite party due to difference in signature of the complainant and `400 per dishonour amounting to a total `3,600. This opposite party has appropriated only `2,400 towards the bank charges and `1200 is still due as on 10.5.2011.The regular defaults have increased the overdue charges. As on 10.5.2011 the regular defaults the over due installment is `16,925, accrued over due charges is `1,877.64 ad expense of `1,650 which amounts to a total amount of `20,452.64 excluding the future installments, Complainant shall repay the outstanding amount and continue to pay the remaining installments. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

2^nd opposite party filed version separately contending that the complainant holds an account with them. The cheques drawn by him on his account will be dishonoured if the same is otherwise in order and the signature of the customer tallies with the signature given to the bank. The opposite party received the cheque mentioned in the complaint for clearance. Those cheques were returned as those cheques did not tally with the specimen signature available with the bank. Return of a cheque for a valid reason will not be deficiency in service. Bank has issued memo giving reason for the return. The returned dishonoured cheques would be sent to the payee. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Hence 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 the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A7. Opposite party has adduced neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant purchased a vehicle from KVR Dream vehicles, Kannur under Finance of Tata Motors Finance Ltd./1^st opposite party. Complainant had issued 20 blank cheques. The 1at opposite party contended that 9 cheques were dishonoured by 2^nd opposite party/Bank due to difference in signature of the complainant and of the specimen signature. 1^st opposite party admitted that they had charged `400 per dishonour amounting to a total of `3,600.

          1^st opposite party further contended that they had already appropriated `2400 towards the bank charges and `1,200 is still due as on 10.5.2011. 1^st opposite party also contended that as per receipt information the overdue instalment is `16,925, accrued overdue charges is `16,925 accrued overdue charges is `1877.64 and expenses is `1,650 which amounts to a total of `20,452.64.

          Complainant’s definite case is that all the 20 cheques issued by complainant carries same signature. The allegation of sign mismatch is a tactics of opposite parties 1 and 2 to exploit complainant so as to extract money in the name of cheque return charge. The averment of the complainant is that he has to pay only `955 towards the balance of cheque return charge though opposite party claims a balance of `3850 pending towards the cheque return charge.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence in tune with the pleadings. It is seen stated that he has issued 20 blank cheques to opposite party. At the time of issuing the cheque 1st opposite party verified the signature in the cheque with signature of passport and Driving license. 1^st opposite party has not suspected any difference in the signature. But 1^st opposite party informed later that  the cheque bearing No.306107 had been returned for reason of difference in signature and another one bearing No.306109 would not be produced since there was also difference in signature. He has also stated that 1^st opposite party has charged `400 each as cheque return charges. However, cheques before and after these return cheques 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party produce other cheques and withdrawn money. It is also stated that the contention of opposite party that there were  cheques returned by 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party and `3000 remained them to be paid. Affidavit evidence   further states that the return of cheques bearing numbers 306107, 306109, 306110,306114 to 306118 etc. and the claim of `400 each to these cheques are wrong steps. The complainant has to pay only `955 as balance for the entire returned cheques. Complainant also adduced evidence that though he has demanded to return all the cheques and in turn to receive new cheques opposite party was not ready for the same. All the alleged returned cheques have been retained illegally by 1^st opposite party. The returning of cheque on the alleged reason of mismatch is an illegal act of opposite parties 1 and 2 for only to extract money which is only an unfair dealing of opposite parties.

          Ext.A1 dated 11.9.2010 is the copy of the lawyer notice Ext.A2 acknowledgement proves that complainant sent  such a letter to 1^st opposite party but it was not replied. Ext.A1 clearly stated that in the 20 cheques collected by 1^st opposite party that there was no difference in signature and all were similar. Ext.A1 called upon 1^st opposite party to verify all the cheques and to return any of such cheques which shows sign mismatch or any other mistakes in the cheque for substituting the same.

          1^st opposite party did not respond to the legal notice of complainant. This negative approach is nothing but a sign of unfair dealings that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.Ext.A1 reveals the readiness of complainant to rectify any of the defects but that was not accepted by opposite party. This leads to assume that opposite party was not willing to solve the problem if anything that was rally existed. The problem of sign  mismatch  could have been very well be solved on obtaining fresh cheques and put an end to hurdles so as to make transaction smooth avoiding the possible loss.

          Opposite party contended mainly that 9 cheques were returned since there was difference in signature with the specimen signature. But opposite party did not attempt to prove the same. No documents filed. This is a matter which could have been easily proved. Mere production of the retuned cheques and specimen signature alone is large and sufficient to prove the main pleadings of the opposite party. But neither 1^st opposite party produced the returned bounced cheque nor 2^nd opposite party produced the documents that carries the specimen signature. Specimen signature had been permanently retained with 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party has admitted in version that the bounced cheques were returned to 1^st  opposite party. Thus these two documents are readily available exclusively within the hands of opposite parties which they reluctant to produce before the Forum forfear of coming out of the truth open. Opposite party did not even entered in witness box which they have no explanation. The facts of the case reveals that opposite parties are capable of proving their case by merely producing the relevant documents which are readily available within their hands. Thus the facts and circumstances of the case itself prove that there is no substance in the contentions raised by the opposite parties. On going through the available evidence there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant.  1^st opposite party is not entitled to receive any amount towards the cheque returned charges. We are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable for the unfair trade practice which is quite evident from the facts and circumstances and of available evidence of the case. Complainant is entitled to get back all the returned bounced cheque claimed to be returned together with a sum of `10,000 as compensation and an amount of `1000 towards the cost of the litigation. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties

1) to return back all the  cheques including dishonoured

   cheques and documents of the vehicle by receiving the

    actual amount  of the cheque

2) `10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation

    and `1,000 (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 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

A2. Post al AD card.

A3. Receipt issued by KVR Dream vehicle

A4. Copy of the letter dt.16.8.11 sent to 1^st OP

A5.Demand notice sent by 1^st OP

A6. Receipts issued by 1^st OP

A7. Copy of ledger extract from 2^nd OP

Exhibits for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.1^st complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

Nil

                                                  / forwarded by order/

                                                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent