IMPORTANT POINTS
Ld. Distt. Forum ought to have gone through materials on record properly and given its finding.
Ld. Distt. Forum did not take pleadings in consideration and evidence of both parties with proper perspective.

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, President.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No.1.

2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has purchased a new Yamaha Fascino Scooter having incurred loan from OP Nos. 2 and 3. There was agreement between the complainant and the financer to the effect that the loan amount would be recovered on instalment basis. The complainant alleged inter alia that on 11.7.2016 the post dated cheque of the complainant was sent by OP No.3 to OP No.1 for encashment but the said cheque was bounced on the ground that the complainant has no sufficient fund in his account. The complainant alleged that he had got sufficient fund in his account but OP No.1 made false stand of insufficient fund in his account for which it has got deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, he filed the complaint.

4. OP No.1 who is the present respondent No.2 did not file written version and as such, he was set ex parte.

5. OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed written version admitting about the loan incurred by the complainant and sending of cheque to OP No.1 for encashment. It is also admitted that the cheque being bounced, they have informed the complainant and also as per the banking norms, they have deducted some extra amount although the instalment was later paid by the complainant to OP Nos. 2 and 3. They have no any deficiency of service on their part.

6. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

“xxx xxx xxx

The complaint petition is allowed. The OP 1 is directed to return the charges Rs.13.87 paisa and Rs.281.53 paisa collected towards wrongful dishonor of cheaue. The OP 2 is directed to return the late payment charges of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only in excess of EMI collected from the complainant. Further the OP 1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as compensation, Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for mental agony of the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) as litigation expenses to the petitioner within 30 (Thirty) days of receipt of this order failing which the OPs are liable to pay penal interest of 9% per annum on the above amounts.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum having not understood the case properly passed the impugned order against OP Nos. 2 and 3. According to him, learned District Forum has committed error in law by finding deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos. 2 and 3. He submitted that as per procedure, they have sent the cheque for encashment but cheque was dishonored for which they have intimated the complainant. Learned District Forum ought to have understood such fact and could have exonerated OP Nos. 2 and 3 from the liability. He also submitted that the complainant has admitted in the complaint that OP Nos. 2 and 3 have informed the complainant about the bounce of the cheque and thereafter, the complainant deposited the money. So the learned District Forum have committed error in law by not considering all these facts and should have come to a correct conclusion. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that they have not preferred appeal but he admitted that the cheque has been bounced at 10.30 AM as the complainant has no sufficient fund but the funds were deposited at 2 PM on the same day in his account. So, they have no any deficiency of service on their part.

9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10. It is for the complainant to prove