DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 2^nd day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing 06/07/2022   

CC/117/2022

Selestin.Kavitha.S

6/582, Ward No. 6

Alathur Grama Panchayath

      Palakkad – 678 541                                                   -       Complainant

(By Adv. M/s M.P.Ravi & M.J.Vince)

Vs

1.   The Manager,

Nissan Renault Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.

VBC Solitaire, 5th Floor,

47 & 49, Bazulla Road,

T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

(By Adv. K. N. Sreelatha)

2.   The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Alathur Branch, Pineapple Towers,

Main Road, Alathur.                                                 -        Opposite parties

(By Adv. P. Rammohan)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant

The complainant availed a car loan from the 1^st opposite party and issued 3 cheques bearing serial numbers 496371, 406370 (third number not mentioned in the complaint) for Rs. 9080/- each towards the EMIs of the loan.  According to the complainant, when these cheques were presented in clearing, it was returned with reason "Refer to Drawer" and   collected Rs. 1,342/- towards return charges, GST & penal charges.  When the 1^st opposite party threatened of attaching the vehicle for default, she cleared the defaulted instalments through NEFT.  Though the complainant sent E-mails to the 1^st opposite party requesting them to hand over the bounced cheques, they directed her to contact the 2^nd opposite party.  When contacted the 2^nd opposite party, they didn't give any satisfactory reply.  After repeated contacts, they issued only an account statement showing the debits of charges for dishonour.  The complainant allege that non returning of cheques even after clearing the  amount defaulted due to the return of cheques is deficiency in service and hence approached this Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs. 1,01,171/-.

2.   Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance, but failed to file their version within the statutory period.  Hence the versions were rejected.

3.   Though the case was taken up for settlement during the Adalath held on 30/12/2022, no settlement could be reached.

3.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A3 as evidence.  Ext. A1 is the account statement of the complainant with 2^nd opposite party, A2 is the loan account statement of the complainant with 1^st opposite party and A3 is the legal notice issued to the opposite parties on behalf of the complainant.

4.   In the absence of versions from the opposite parties, we have only the proof affidavit and the documents adduced as evidence by the complainant in our hand to decide whether the complainant has succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the opposite parties.  Ext. A1 shows that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party when the two cheques in question were returned.  Ext. A2 confirm the return of these cheques with reason "Refer to drawer".  The exact reason for the return of cheques is not made known to the complainant.  If any cheque is returned in clearing, the paying bank returns the cheque along with the cheque return memo showing the reason for return to the presenting bank for onward delivery to the payee.

The narrations given in the Ext. A2, by the 1st opposite party, clearly show that these cheques were returned for the reason "Refer to drawer".  Hence it is to be assumed   that the 1^st opposite party had already received the cheques and the return memo from their bankers after which they posted the particulars in the account ledger and collected the necessary charges.  Hence non return of bounced cheques with memo even after the complainant clearing the defaulted amount on account of this, is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  From the adduced evidence we are unable to find any deficiency on the part of 2^nd opposite party as their responsibility of returning the cheque along with memo had been properly complied with.  Since there was sufficient balance in the account, the return of cheque might be due to some other reason.  Though the exact reason for the return of cheques can't be understood from the memo, it should have been ascertained by the 1^st opposite party through their bankers and informed the complainant.  If they had acted properly at the first instance of return, the complainant could have approached the 2^nd opposite party with the return memo and sorted out the issue there.

5.   Hence, in short, the 1st opposite party is responsible for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

6.   Therefore the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

1. 1st opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,696/- being the total charges collected by both opposite parties on account of cheque return, along with interest @ 10% pa from 10/05/2021 till the date of payment.
2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony &
3. Rs. 5,000/- as cost.

The 1^st opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which 1^st opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd day May, 2023.

                                                                                                Sd/-        

                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                       President 

                                                                Sd/-

                                                        Vidya A

                                  Member   

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:

Ext. A1: Photocopy of Bank account statement of the complainant from

              06/04/21 to 16/07/21 with 2^nd opposite party.

Ext. A2: Loan account statement of the complainant from 08/04/21 to

              06/04/22 with 1^st opposite party.

Ext. A3: Legal notice issued dated 03/06/22 by Adv. MP Ravi to the opposite

             parties on behalf of the complainant.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs.5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.