Full Judgment
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.08.2011, no representation for both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant filed complaint against the opposite party claiming for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and another Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and pain, caused due to the deficiency of service by the opposite party and for costs.
3. The complainant availed the credit card facility from the opposite party and he had issued a cheque for Rs.6,616/- drawn on Bharath Overseas Bank on 31.7.06 for the payment towards the credit card facility. But the cheque was returned as bounced since the cheque was presented for payment of Rs.66,161/- even though the complainants credit card limit was only for Rs.15,000/- against each. The cheque was fraudulently deposited for Rs.66,161/-. Once again the cheque was represented on 27.09.06 for the same amount even though the due was only for Rs.6,616/- and the subsequent cheque for Rs.6,616/- was cleared on 4.10.06 and even after that the opposite party failed to reverse the penal charges and other charges and thereby the complainant has come forward with the consumer complaint.
4. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant and the complainant did not come with clean hands and there was no deficiency of service and thereby the complaint to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no merit in the case and the complainant failed to establish that there were deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant filed this appeal. On perusal of documents, both sides averments and it is seen that the complainant was availing the service of the opposite party for the purpose of credit card facilities and thereby for the dues payable he had issued the cheque which was presented twice by the opposite party for the sum of Rs.66,616/- which were bounced due to defect and after that for the actual due of Rs.6,616/- subsequent cheque was issued for the same amount in the month of 4.10.06. It is the contention of the complainant that in spite of the amount for actual due was paid the opposite party has not come forward to reverse the penal charges imposed for the non payment of dues and wrongly claimed Rs.66,616/- even though the credit card limit is maximum of Rs.15,000/- each. Regarding this aspect on perusal of the complainants documents it is found as per Exhibit A2 notice issued by the opposite party he was called for conciliation meeting to settle the dispute relating to the credit card by the advocate and for which the complainant has sent a reply as per Exhibit A3 for not accepting the conciliation and alleging that the wrong use of the cheque issued by him and on perusal of the cheque copy issued by the complainant which is marked as Exhibit A5 dated 28.07.06 drawn on State Bank of India card No.4317575031280879 and in the column for rupees it was written as “Six thousand, six hundred and sixteen only”, but in the figures column the amount is mentioned as Rs.66,161/- instead of Rs.6,616/-. So it is clear that the cheque was wrongly written by the complainant in the figure column and thereby the opposite party has presented the cheque for collection twice without going in to the discrepancy in writing of words and figures written by the complainant and even though the complainant stated that the limit for the credit card was only Rs.15,000/- they have fraudulently presented the cheque for higher value of Rs.66,161/-. When the complainant himself wrongly issued the cheque without care and due diligence and the presentation of cheques for the dues issued by the complainant for collection by the opposite party without noting the discrepancy in the cheque itself would not amount to any deficiency of service. It is not the case of the complainant that the figures in the cheque was filled up by the opposite party and presented for collection. When the mistake is on the part of the complainant he has come forward with the false complaint against the opposite party and he even failed to produce the return memo to expose reasons for the bounced cheque which itself would go to show that the complainant has not come forward with clean hands in this regard and thereby the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint after the analyzing the details in proper manner in which we feel that there is no need for any interference and the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.255/2007 dated 29.10.2008 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs in this appeal.