SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

Sri. Shaji @ Sukesh has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:-  He had availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from the opposite parties firm on 3.11.2008.   It was to be repaid within 6 months by way of remittance of Rs.350/- daily with 2.75% interest for every 100 rupees.  He had closed the A/c by remitting Rs.42,725/- on 16.05.2009.  The actual remittance was only Rs.40,725/- and that the balance of Rs.2000/- was the excess remittance.  At the time sanction of the said loan of Rs.35,000/- they had collected 2  blank cheque bearing No.712880, 712894 in the name of Sri. Anilkumar along with the copy of title deed, tax receipt, stamp paper worth Rs.50/-, promissory  note of the guarantor, photo copy of his identity card  and Anilkumar; since he had closed the loan a/c; they have issued receipt on 16.05.2009 with endorsement ‘A/c closed.’   They had not returned the balance  cheque and other documents to him so far.   Hence this complaint for getting the documents and other reliefs.   

            2.  Notice were issued to the opposite parties.   They entered appearance before this Forum and filed detailed version.  In the version, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have stated that the complainant had not taken any loan amount from them and they have no knowledge  of the whereabouts of the complainant and denied the terms and conditions of the alleged transaction and denied the acceptance of the blank cheque leaves.    It is stated that they have not accepted any documents from the complainant and not issued any receipts after stating A/c closed, since the complainant had not taken any loan from them.  Since the complainant had not taken any loan from them, the question of  surety   will not raise.  8 receipts produced by the complainant was taken by the collection agent Sri. Renny Jacob friend of the complainant  from the firm and produced it before the Forum falsely.  The photo copy of loan agreement produced by the complainant is a forged document.  It is further stated that the said Renny Jacob the friend of the complainant was  the collecting  agent of the first opposite party  firm, and he had taken  several receipts and application forms from   the firm falsely and collected a sum of Rs.1,15,700/- from several parties without their knowledge.   Due to that, they had removed the said Renny Jacob from the firm as per the petition of the second opposite party before the Police Station, Haripad and a case had been registered under section 408, 420 of Indian penal code.   It is further stated that the complainant had filed this complaint before the Forum, under the said guidance of the said Renny Jacob.   There is no seal or signature of responsible persons of the firm in the documents including the application form produced  by the complainant.  There is spelling mistake in the name of the second opposite party and the handwriting in the loan application was by the said  Renny Jacob.   All the entries in the documents including signature of the 2^nd opposite party are false and fabricated.   The complainant and the said  Renny Jacob are made fabricated documents in order to collect money from the opposite parties and so it is punishable under Indian Penal Code.   It is further stated that a case is now pending before the Police Station, Haripad against the said Renny Jacob for cheating the first opposite party by way of collection of money illegally from the clients of the first opposite party and he had appeared before Police to hand over the receipts and other documents to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties byway of undertaking in the stamp paper.   It is further stated that  the receipts produced by the complainant before the Forum are to be returned to the opposite parties as per the undertaking in the  said stamp paper.  The A/c No. DD A/c No. R/38/08 showing in the DA are fabricated one and there is no A/c No. in such a way.    It is stated that the usual practice of  sanction of  the loan are  with 2 sureties.  In the alleged loan application, there is only one surety and it shows that there is no verification receipt in it.  Since, there is no bona fides in the allegations stated by the complainant, the complaint  is to be dismissed with costs of the opposite  parties.                          

            3.  Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following  issues:-

1)      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2)      Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

4.  Since the opposite parties had filed version, denying the entire allegations of the complainant the Forum adjourned the matter to 11.11.2009 for fling proof affidavit for taking further evidence from the complainant.  On that day he has applied for time, so the Forum adjourned the case to 9.12.2009 for the evidence of the complainant.   On 9.12.2009, he again applied for time.  So the Forum posted the case again to 15.1.2010.   On that day the complainant was absent.  Opposite parties were present and submitted that the complaint is to be treated as frivolous and vexatious, since they have knowledge about the complaint and that he has not availed any loan facility from them and that the copies of documents produced by the complainant are fabricated one.   Considering the in ordinate delay in adducing evidence by the complainant in support of his case the Forum dismissed the complaint with costs on 15.1.2010. 

5.  Before dismissing the complaint we have perused the copies of documents produced by the complainant in detail and verified the version filed by the opposite parties.  Even though the Forum has given sufficient adjournments for evidence, the complaint has not produce proper evidence in order to substantiate his allegations against the opposite parties.  This shows the allegations against the opposite parties are not genuine and the contentions raised by the opposite parties against the complainant are to be treated as true.               In this context, we are of the strong view that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties are without any bona fides and the cause of action and it has no merit.  In this circumstances the complaint is to be treated as frivolous and vexatious one.   Hence the complainant is bound to pay cost to the opposite parties for their mental agony and inconvenience due to the fact that the complainant has dragged on the opposite parties before the Forum unnecessarily and without any reason.  In this respect we  hereby direct the complainant to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the  opposite parties under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing frivolous and vexatious complaint against the opposite parties without any cause of action and harassed the opposite parties unnecessarily.  We further direct the complainant to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. 

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 15^th day of January, 2010.

                                                                                                 Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan

                                                                                                 Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah

                                                                                                 Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi

Appendix:-  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                    By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- pr/-

Compared by:-