KIRAN SIKRI Vs. SHARAD SHARMA
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2009-3-11
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 02,2009

Kiran Sikri Appellant
VERSUS
SHARAD SHARMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)FEELING dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.12.2007, amounting to Rs. 10,000, for having suffered immensely in terms of reputation, physical discomfort, emotional suffering and also having been forced to approach the District Forum for return of post -dated cheques and issue of No Dues Certificate and having suffered threats of the recovery agents, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.)WE have perused the impugned order, the District Forum has given following directions to the respondent:
(i) To return all PDCs or give an undertaking that no PDCs will be misused by the OP in any manner.

(ii) To issue No Dues Certificate under Loan Account No. LADEL 0000 -2748 -295 in favour of the complainant.

(iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant.

(iv) To pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.

(3.)ALLEGATIONS of the appellant in brief are that he applied to the respondent for a car loan to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. The respondent sanctioned this amount which was repayable in 35 EMIs of Rs. 8,808 per month. The appellant delivered 35 post -dated cheques of Rs. 8,808 each. But due to the inflated rate of interest, the appellant changed her mind and applied to the respondent to cancel the loan on 22.11.2004, the respondent accepted her request and cancelled the loan. Consequently the loan was never disbursed. The appellant requested the respondent to return all post -dated cheques which were handed over to the respondent at the time of sanctioning of the loan. The respondent assured return of all post -dated cheques. Later on respondent started presenting the post -dated cheques in spite of the fact that loan was never availed by the appellant. Appellant informed the respondent about this illegal practice, in response to which the respondent admitted that all this had happened due to mistake. Later on the appellant received a notice from the respondent dated 8.12.2004 calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 9,029, which became due on the dishonour of the cheque. Another notice was also received from the respondent on 7.1.2005. This time the respondent called upon the appellant to pay Rs. 18,085 failing which they threatened to issue proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Recovery agent was also sent to intimidate and harass the appellant. The appellant prayed for directions to respondent to return all post -dated cheques, with compensation and cost of litigation.
In reply, the respondent pleaded that as per request made by the appellant with it, for grant of loan of Rs. 3 lacs for purchase of a vehicle namely Accent Car under the Loan -cum -Hypothecation Scheme of the respondent Bank, the respondent had approved the loan of Rs. 3 lacs to the appellant in terms of the loan agreement entered into between the parties. Accordingly on 4.11.2004, the said loan amount has been duly disbursed to the dealer as per the request of the appellant and the said amount has been duly debited in the loan account of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that after some time the appellant made a request with the respondent for cancellation of the said loan and accordingly the request had been processed with the different department of the respondent bank and finally the respondent had got the refund of the loan amount from the said dealer and only after the same the loan account of the appellant has been closed by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that since the loan account was in operation till February 2005, due to time taken in the process of cancellation of the loan, therefore, the cheques pertaining to the months till the closure of the loan account have been presented by the respondent. However, after cancellation and closure of the said loan, the respondent bank had already sent the said post dated cheques to the appellant in due course of business. Accordingly there was no mala fide intention on the part of the respondent and there was no deficiency in service.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.