MANOJ KUMARI vs GMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LIMITED

-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 27. 2. 2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which her complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 by holding that the complaint filed by her was frivolous and vexatious.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) got her Maruti 800 bearing registration No. CH-03-K-7543 financed from GAMC Financial Services Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 1,15,000 and the said loan was re-payable in equated monthly instalments of Rs. 2,470 for a period of five years starting from January, 2003. She had paid advance cheques for the entire instalments to respondent No. 1 and the said cheques were honoured till December, 2005 i. e. for a period of three years. It was next averred that she was facing some financial difficulty and needed to get the car refinanced. However, this was possible only if respondents had issued ''no Objection Certificate'' or she had paid the entire outstanding loan back to them. She had tried to contact the respondents but could not do so as their office at Chandigarh was closed. She had even approached the Bank but the Bank also did not disclose the address. Left with no alternative, she stopped payment of the cheques for December, 2005, January, 2006 and February, 2006.

It was next averred that in April, 2006 , respondent No. 2 visited her residence to inform their address and also collected Rs. 7,410 , the amount of three cheques. He had assured that he would get the charges of Rs. 1,500 which were levied on account of dishonouring of cheques waived from the head office and get issued NOC but later on they failed to waive the bouncing charges and to issue NOC in her favour.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Respondents in their written reply admitted that they had shifted the office but stated that they were not bound to inform her about shifting/closing of the office. They further stated that appellant had issued the cheques in question for repayment of the loan and by stopping payment of cheques, she was under obligation to pay bouncing charges of Rs. 1,500 and to make payment of three cheques. They further stated that they were not obliged to waive Rs. 1,500 for dishonouring of cheques. They next stated that they were ready to give waiver of Rs. 1,500 if appellant wished to close her account and paid the complete loan amount due against her for the issuance of NOC.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties District Consumer Forum vide order dated 27. 2. 2008 held the complaint to be frivolous and vexatious and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10,000 Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Raman Sharma and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that appellant (complainant) had stopped payment of three cheques which she had issued in advance for the months of December, 2005, January, 2006 and February, 2006. Consequently the said cheques were dishonoured when the same were presented in the bank for getting the amount. The Bank charges certain amount for dishonoured cheque. Consequently respondents had levied Rs. 1,500 as bouncing charges. Since, it was fault of the appellant that she had instructed to the bank to stop payment, so, she is liable to pay Rs. 1,500 as bouncing charges for dishonouring of three cheques. Respondents were not bound to inform the appellant about the shifting or closing of the office. It was her duty to honour the cheques which she had already given and could adopt some other method to know the address of respondents but it is not proper method to stop payment to know their address. In fact there was no justification on her part to stop payment of cheques issued by her. A perusal of the letter dated 22. 6. 2007, whose photocopy is Annexure R-1 which has been placed on file of the Appellate Court shows that respondents had given an offer to the appellant that if she wanted to close her account by making full payment, then they were ready to waive bouncing charges. However, she did not accept this offer and did not make payment of the remaining amount. It is mentioned in the grounds of appeal that she was under financial difficulty and wanted to get re-financed the car from some other finance company after getting NOC. It is for the reason that as she was not having money, so, she did not pay full balance amount till June, 2007. Thus, there is no case in favour of the appellant.

However, intention of the appellant was not to withhold the amount because she had paid amount of Rs. 7,410 of three cheques when respondent No. 2 visited her house. Her only aim was to get the address for obtaining NOC. Keeping in view all the circumstances, the amount of costs to the tune of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellant is highly excessive. Therefore, it is reduced to Rs. 4,000. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.