The judgment established the prevalence of perjury in litigation and awarded punitive damages against the lender for misuse of cheques and filing of false cases.

JUDGMENT

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial).—The appellant Sh. Krishna Kumar Dhankhar has challenged the orders dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum X New Delhi. Vide impugned orders, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their status in the original complaint as it was.

2. Complainant filed a complaint on 26.09.2006 in the District Forum alleging that he had purchased an engine (horse) from M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. which was to be used as carrier after connecting a trailer with it. Cabin of the engine was also required to be made later on. The transaction was done on 20.02.2004 after entering into an agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. 43 Community Centre New Friends Colony Delhi 65 (hereinafter referred to as OP). Price of the engine was Rs. 8,50,000/-. OP for this purpose sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- itself to the complainant. After adding interest to the principle amount of Rs. 8,50,000/-, an amount of Rs. 9,64,750/- was to be repaid to the OP in equal monthly installments (EMI) which were 34 in number and each EMI was of Rs. 28,375/-. Contention of the complainant is that he was not given the copy of the agreement. The complainant handed over to the OP, 39 blank cheques.

3. Complainant submitted that in the month of March 2004 OP informed him on telephone that each EMI was of Rs. 28,375/-. Complainant in the month of August 2004 made calculations at his end and found that 36 installments of Rs. 28,375/- amounted to a total amount of Rs. 10,21,500/-. Complainant pointed out the discrepancy to the OP and stated that inclusive of the interest,an amount of Rs. 9,64,750/- only was payable. Upon this, OP issued a repayment schedule and told that the total number of EMI was 34 and not 36.

4. Controversy between the parties arose on the night of 13.06.2005 when the complainant was plying the vehicle in Jallandhar(Punjab)with certain goods. OP with the help of anti-social elements and bouncers made an attack on the complainant who was driving the vehicle. Complainant was beaten. The vehicle was taken into possession by the bouncers of the OP. Registration certificate, national permit and pollution control certificate of the vehicle were also taken by the bouncers. Complainant begged for mercy and asked the men of the OP to grant him two weeks' times to make the payment of the outstanding dues, if any. Complainant contended that on the date of repossession an amount of Rs. 1,99,626/- stood to the OP. He also submitted that the said figure could go up as some receipts were missing at his end.

5. Complainant further submitted that the OP sold the vehicle to a third person at a throw away price without giving him any notice.

6. Complainant also submitted that OP used one of his blank cheques bearing no. 553613 by filling an amount of Rs. 3,62,000/- with the date 18.01.2006 and filed a case against him under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of MM, Karkardooma Courts Delhi.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid spectrum of facts, complainant prayed for recovery of Rs. 1,99,626/- along with costs of the driver's cabin amounting to Rs. 82,000/-, Advocate's fee (in the case under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act) amounting to Rs. 35,000/- and other miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 15000/-. Besides this, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony was also prayed for. Thus the complainant claimed in all an amount of Rs. 4,81,626/-.

8. OP contested the claim in the District Forum admitting that the vehicle in question was financed by him. OP also admitted having received the blank cheques from the complainant as alleged. OP stated that a schedule of payments was provided to the complainant and the complainant had handed over cheques along with security cheques to the OP. OP furthe