Delhi

North East

CC/132/2023

Sh. Sudhish Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Purvanchal Co-operative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.132/23

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Sudhish Pandey, S/o Sh. Babu Nand Pandey, R/o B-2233-A, Khasra No. 294-295, Gali No. 33, 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110090	Complainant
	Versus
	The Purvanchal Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Regd. Office at: C-1/299, Gali No. 9, IIIrd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110090	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

15.05.2023 08.07.2024 30.08.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he is the member of the Opposite Party Society. Complainant stated that in the month of October 2016, he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party. At the time of taking the loan, he issued ten security cheques in favour of the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that he discharged all his said legal liability of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the Opposite Party by May 2017. Complainant stated that he asked the officials of the Opposite Party to return his ten security cheques but the officials of Opposite Party always made one pretext or other. Complainant stated that during the period of 2020, he again asked the Opposite Party to return the aforesaid cheques then Opposite Party told that due to COVID 19, they had no staff and they were unable to return the aforesaid cheques. Complainant stated that in the year 2020, he received the summons from the Asstt. Registrar (Arbitration), Office of Registrar Co-operative Societies and he came to know that Opposite Party filed a case against one Ashish Mishra who had also taken the loan from the Opposite Party and Complainant was the guarantor of Ashish Mishra in that account. Complainant stated that due to failure of loan amount, Opposite Party filed the case and on 07.01.2021 the said case was dismissed by the Ld. Arbitrator. Complainant stated that in the year 2022 he again went to the Opposite Party and requested them to return the cheques but they made on pretext or other. Complainant stated that he made a written complaint against the Opposite Party to the SHO of P.S Sonia Vihar on 14.03.2023 and on 15.03.2023 Opposite Party returned the nine cheques out of ten. Complainant stated that he received a legal notice dated 28.03.2023 which was served by the Opposite Party and he came to know that Opposite Party misused the blank signed security cheque bearing no. 833441 by way of filling the date and amount of Rs. 3,45,924/- and after dishonouring of the said cheque, the officials of the Opposite Party served the false and frivolous legal notice for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,45,924/-. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to return the security cheque bearing no. 833441 to him and Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.10.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party and he has repaid the said loan amount. His case is that at the time of taking the loan he had given ten blank cheques to the Opposite Party as security cheques. Out of the said cheques nine cheques were returned back to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. One cheque bearing no. 833441 was not returned to the Complainant despite his various requests. His case is that the said cheque has been misused by the Opposite Party by filling the date and amount of Rs. 3,45,924/-. The Complainant was served with a legal notice after dishonour of the said cheque. The Complainant wants that the Opposite Party should return the said cheque to him along with compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
5. The Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that he had given the said cheque for security purpose. If we believe the version of the Complainant that the said cheque was given for security purpose, he should have taken steps for receiving back the said cheque after repayment of the loan taken by him. In case, the Opposite Party was not returning the cheque the Complainant should have given instructions to his banker to stop the payment of cheque in question. Nor the Complainant had issued any legal notice to the Opposite Party to return his cheque. In the present case, the Complainant did not take any step/action against the Opposite Party for returning his cheque.
6. From the pleadings it is revealed that the Complainant also stood surety/guarantor for one Mr. Ashish Mishra who had taken the loan from the Opposite Party. The liability of surety/guarantor for the repayment of the loan is joint and several. Even otherwise Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the cheque was issued for discharge of legal liability.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
8.  Order announced on 30.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)