MANAGER, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD Vs. SUNKARA BRAHMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.03/2009 on the file of District Forum, Nalgonda, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 for financial help to purchase a TV and the estimated cost of the TV was Rs.21,050/- and the same was sanctioned to him by opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.7,020/- towards advance 4 EMIS and issued 8 cheques bearing Nos.313488 to 313495 for an amount of Rs.14,030/- agreeing to pay the said amount in equal instalments i.e. Rs.1,755/- every month. The complainant submitted that cheque Nos.313488 to 313492 were encashed by opposite party No.2 from his account. But a person, namely, Shravan Kumar (D.M.A.) who works in opposite party No.2 Nalgonda branch called him and said that cheque No.31393 was returned without clearance on 3rd April, 2008 and asked him to pay the said cheque amount in cash in their branch and told that he would return the advance cheque within 7 days and therefore the complainant paid the cash on 21-4-2008. The complainant further submitted that when he went to the Bank to deposit the next months instalment, he came to know that the above cheque No.313493 was encashed by opposite parties in the month of May, 2008 and therefore he went to opposite party No.1 and asked about the double payment receiving on a single EMI and the office bearers of opposite party No.1 answered him that he has to approach the main branch at Pune and get clarification and the mistake was not theirs but it was by the bank. The complainant enquired in the bank and they replied that the said cheque was never returned by the bank uncleared and it was presented in the Month of May ony and the same was cleared. Hence the complainant requested the bank people to stop payment on remaining two cheques. It is the case of the complainant that in the month of June some of the employees of opposite party No.1 came to his house and threatened him that he has to pay remaining two instalments at once but he was willing to pay only one instalment and they have to issue loan clearance certificate. The employees of opposite party No.1 further threatened the complainant that if he failed to pay the two instalments they will take away the TV and created a scene which caused great insult to him and his family members. On 23-1-2009 the complainant received a notice from opposite parties stating that they appointed an Advocate namely, C.B.Pathy as conciliator who stays at Hyderabad and the complainant has to consult him on his grievance for which the complainant sent a reply to C.B.Pathy. The complainant further submitted that he could not prepare for his DSC examination as he was forced by the opposite parties to run from pillar to post to settle his problem. He further submitted that he was receiving threatening calls that he will get an arrest warrant and hence he approached the District Forum claiming an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.

(3.) Opposite parties 1 and 2 had not responded even after receiving notices and hence they were set exparte.