TVS Finance & Services Ltd., Chennai V/S Earesh S/o. Vaddar Machappa, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/71

Earesh S/o. Vaddar Machappa, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Finance & Services Ltd., Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Gangadhar.S. Patil

31 Jan 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/71

Earesh S/o. Vaddar Machappa, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
TVS Finance & Services Ltd., Chennai TVS Finance & Services Ltd., Hubli Suresh. M. KLL Apartments, Raichur Post Master, Sub- Post Office (MDH), Manvi						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Earesh against opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct opposite No-1 to discharge the complaint from the amount which was already paid by him, for to direct opposite No-1 for not issued legal notices, to direct opposite No-1 to hand over remaining blank cheqeus and to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony with cost and other reliefs, as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased TVS Motor Bike from Bajaj Motors, Raichur by availing loan from opposite Nos. 1 to 3. He issued total 34 post dated cheques to opposite Nos. 1 to 3 pertaining to his S.B. Account No. 456647 in opposite No.4s post office. He paid total amount of Rs. 53,757/- out of 58,644/- balance to be paid by him to the extent of Rs. 4,887/-. The cheque bearing No. 955851 dishonored vide memo dt. 20-10-09, cheque bearing No. 955852 was also dishonored vide memo dt. 19-11-09, another cheque bearing No. 955854 was also dishonored vide memo dt. 23-01-10 as insufficient funds. The cheque bearing No. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored by opposite No-4 and penalty imposed on complainant. Opposite No-4 willfully dishonored the cheques and made an endorsement as insufficient funds. Opposite No-1 knowing fully well that, some of the presented cheques are not pertaining to him, those cheques are belongs to one Sunkappa, as such all opposites shown their negligence and thereby all of them found guilty under deficiency in their services. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 to 3 are placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-4 appeared in this case through Advocate, filed his written version by contending that, cheque No. 955851, 955852 and 955854 are belongs to one Sunkappa who is no way concerned to the account of complainant, accordingly those cheques were dishonored and informed to opposite No-1. The cheque bearing Nos. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account. All other cheques were realized as and when sent for collection, all other allegations made against opposite No-4 are denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint against opposite No-4 with cost among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, cheque No. 955851, 955852 and 955854 sent for realization by opposite No-1 to opposite No-4 were dishonored even though fully knowing well that, these cheques pertaining to complainant. Further cheque Nos. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored by opposite No-4 as insufficient funds even though he is got sufficient fund in his account and thereafter opposite No-1 started issuing illegal notices of demand and thereby shown their negligence and all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) Affirmative in respect of opposite Nos. 1 to 3 and in Negative in respect of opposite No-4. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 are marked. Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 remained Ex-parte. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-4 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked. 8. As already stated above, opposite Nos. 1 to 3 were placed Ex-parte, as such allegations made by the complainant against them will be taken into consideration at the later stage. 9. Now we have to see, which kind of deficiency in service committed by opposite No-4. 10. The allegations of the complainant against opposite No-4 is that, cheque bearing No. 955801 to 955813 dishonored by opposite No-4 sent by opposite No-1 for collection as insufficient funds even though he had sufficient funds in his SB Account No. 456647 in opposite No-4 post office. Opposite No-4 denied this allegation and contended that, cheqeus regularly cleared from his post office sent by opposite No-1 from time to time but cheque Nos. 955801 to 955813 submitted by opposite No-1 were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Ex.P-9 the statement issued by post office discloses that, those cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of fund as and when presented for clearance. Ex.P-13 letter issued by Post Office shows the same as those cheqeus were dishonored due to insufficient of funds. When such being the case, the complainant not established the fact that, he has got sufficient funds as on the date of those cheques in his SB Account No. 456647. Making allegations without any documentary evidences in this regard, we are of the view that, those allegations remained as an allegation without proof, accordingly we have not noticed any kind of negligence either by opposite No-4 or by opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in this regard. 11. Now, coming to the second allegations of the complainant is that, cheque bearing Nos. 955851, 955852 and 955854 vide Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-5 respectively dishonored by opposite No-4 with an endorsement insufficient of funds as those cheques are belongs to one Sunkappa and not belongs to complainant. In the said circumstances the clarification was given to opposite No-1 vide statement Ex.P-7. Admittedly these three cheques are not pertaining to the complainant, those are belongs to one Sunkappa, those cheques not issued in the name of complainant and more over there was insufficient funds in his account of said Sunkappa, there are no reasons for opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to send those cheques to opposite No-4 for realization in respect of the loan account of complainant, as such it is a clear cut case of negligence of opposite Nos. 1 to 3 by sending those cheques pertaining to Sunkappa who is no way concerned to either complainant or his loan account. Opposite No-4 rightly dishonored the said cheqeus with its endorsement, as such we have not find any deficiency in service by opposite No-4, accordingly the complaint of this complainant against opposite No-4 is not maintainable. We have noticed the deficiency in service by opposite nos. 1 to 3 accordingly we answered Point No-1. 12. Admittedly as per say of the complainant in his affidavit-evidence as well as in his complaint, the balance amount is required to be paid by him is of Rs. 4,887/-, by keeping in view of this fact, he is entitled to get the release of post dated cheques on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,887/- as prayed in this complaint. In addition to it, he is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3000/- towards deficiency in service by opposite Nos. 1 to 3 and also he is entitled to recover another lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from them towards cost of litigation and thereby we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to get discharge from the loan borrowed by him on payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,887/ to opposite No-1 and he is entitled to get back remaining post dated cheqeus which are in the custody of opposite No-1. The complainant is also entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from opposite Nos-1 to 3 jointly and severally. One month time is granted to opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to comply the above order from the date of this judgment. The complaint is hereby dismissed against opposite No-4. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Earesh against opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct opposite No-1 to discharge the complaint from the amount which was already paid by him, for to direct opposite No-1 for not issued legal notices, to direct opposite No-1 to hand over remaining blank cheqeus and to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony with cost and other reliefs, as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased TVS Motor Bike from Bajaj Motors, Raichur by availing loan from opposite Nos. 1 to 3. He issued total 34 post dated cheques to opposite Nos. 1 to 3 pertaining to his S.B. Account No. 456647 in opposite No.4s post office. He paid total amount of Rs. 53,757/- out of 58,644/- balance to be paid by him to the extent of Rs. 4,887/-. The cheque bearing No. 955851 dishonored vide memo dt. 20-10-09, cheque bearing No. 955852 was also dishonored vide memo dt. 19-11-09, another cheque bearing No. 955854 was also dishonored vide memo dt. 23-01-10 as insufficient funds. The cheque bearing No. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored by opposite No-4 and penalty imposed on complainant. Opposite No-4 willfully dishonored the cheques and made an endorsement as insufficient funds. Opposite No-1 knowing fully well that, some of the presented cheques are not pertaining to him, those cheques are belongs to one Sunkappa, as such all opposites shown their negligence and thereby all of them found guilty under deficiency in their services. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 to 3 are placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-4 appeared in this case through Advocate, filed his written version by contending that, cheque No. 955851, 955852 and 955854 are belongs to one Sunkappa who is no way concerned to the account of complainant, accordingly those cheques were dishonored and informed to opposite No-1. The cheque bearing Nos. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account. All other cheques were realized as and when sent for collection, all other allegations made against opposite No-4 are denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint against opposite No-4 with cost among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, cheque No. 955851, 955852 and 955854 sent for realization by opposite No-1 to opposite No-4 were dishonored even though fully knowing well that, these cheques pertaining to complainant. Further cheque Nos. 955801 to 955813 were dishonored by opposite No-4 as insufficient funds even though he is got sufficient fund in his account and thereafter opposite No-1 started issuing illegal notices of demand and thereby shown their negligence and all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) Affirmative in respect of opposite Nos. 1 to 3 and in Negative in respect of opposite No-4. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 are marked. Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 remained Ex-parte. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-4 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked. 8. As already stated above, opposite Nos. 1 to 3 were placed Ex-parte, as such allegations made by the complainant against them will be taken into consideration at the later stage. 9. Now we have to see, which kind of deficiency in service committed by opposite No-4. 10. The allegations of the complainant against opposite No-4 is that, cheque bearing No. 955801 to 955813 dishonored by opposite No-4 sent by opposite No-1 for collection as insufficient funds even though he had sufficient funds in his SB Account No. 456647 in opposite No-4 post office. Opposite No-4 denied this allegation and contended that, cheqeus regularly cleared from his post office sent by opposite No-1 from time to time but cheque Nos. 955801 to 955813 submitted by opposite No-1 were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Ex.P-9 the statement issued by post office discloses that, those cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of fund as and when presented for clearance. Ex.P-13 letter issued by Post Office shows the same as those cheqeus were dishonored due to insufficient of funds. When such being the case, the complainant not established the fact that, he has got sufficient funds as on the date of those cheques in his SB Account No. 456647. Making allegations without any documentary evidences in this regard, we are of the view that, those allegations remained as an allegation without proof, accordingly we have not noticed any kind of negligence either by opposite No-4 or by opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in this regard. 11. Now, coming to the second allegations of the complainant is that, cheque bearing Nos. 955851, 955852 and 955854 vide Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-5 respectively dishonored by opposite No-4 with an endorsement insufficient of funds as those cheques are belongs to one Sunkappa and not belongs to complainant. In the said circumstances the clarification was given to opposite No-1 vide statement Ex.P-7. Admittedly these three cheques are not pertaining to the complainant, those are belongs to one Sunkappa, those cheques not issued in the name of complainant and more over there was insufficient funds in his account of said Sunkappa, there are no reasons for opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to send those cheques to opposite No-4 for realization in respect of the loan account of complainant, as such it is a clear cut case of negligence of opposite Nos. 1 to 3 by sending those cheques pertaining to Sunkappa who is no way concerned to either complainant or his loan account. Opposite No-4 rightly dishonored the said cheqeus with its endorsement, as such we have not find any deficiency in service by opposite No-4, accordingly the complaint of this complainant against opposite No-4 is not maintainable. We have noticed the deficiency in service by opposite nos. 1 to 3 accordingly we answered Point No-1. 12. Admittedly as per say of the complainant in his affidavit-evidence as well as in his complaint, the balance amount is required to be paid by him is of Rs. 4,887/-, by keeping in view of this fact, he is entitled to get the release of post dated cheques on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,887/- as prayed in this complaint. In addition to it, he is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3000/- towards deficiency in service by opposite Nos. 1 to 3 and also he is entitled to recover another lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from them towards cost of litigation and thereby we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to get discharge from the loan borrowed by him on payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,887/ to opposite No-1 and he is entitled to get back remaining post dated cheqeus which are in the custody of opposite No-1. The complainant is also entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from opposite Nos-1 to 3 jointly and severally. One month time is granted to opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to comply the above order from the date of this judgment. The complaint is hereby dismissed against opposite No-4. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.