Bangalore District Court
Tvs Credit Services Limited vs Mahammad Unais G on 11 November, 2025
SCCH-23 1 CC.No.12929/2023
KABC020385492023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU. (SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B, (Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
C.C. No.12929/2023
Between :
TVS Credit Services Limited,
Having its registered office at :
Chaitnya No.12,
Khader Nawaz Khan Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600006.
& Regional Office at :
No.613/31, Vishnupriya Tower,
KBG Extension, MKK Road,
Nagappa Block, Devaiah Park,
Bengaluru-560021.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Ms. Siddhi Satish Shetty,
PA holder of the Complainant,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o Bengaluru. ..COMPLAINANT
(By Adv.: Sri.Subramanya. K)
SCCH-23 2 CC.No.12929/2023
And
Mr. Mahammad Unais. G,
S/W/D/O Hasan Ismayil,
g;1-112 Gadiyara House,
Bantwal Taluk, Kedila,
Dakshina Kannada,
Karnataka,
Dakshina Kannada,
Near Jumma Masjid-574325. ....ACCUSED
(By Adv.: Sri. Sachin. K. Naik)
Date of complaint : 30.09.2023
Date of commencement of
Evidence : 22.09.2025
Offence charged : Sec.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Date of Judgment : 11.11.2025
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty.
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
1. The present case arises out of the complaint filed u/sec 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
SCCH-23 3 CC.No.12929/2023
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that: The complainant is Non-banking financial Company registered under the Companies Act 1956. It is engaged in business of extending financial facility to customers. The Complainant represented by its Power of Attorney holder. The accused is borrower. The accused approached the Complainant finance for CD loan. Accordingly the complainant finance sanctioned the loan of Rs.50,100/-. The accused had agreed to repay the loan by way of monthly installments as per the repayment schedule and entered into an agreement/ account bearing no.KA3025CD0446477. Accused opted for NACH/ECS facility to repay the loan. Accordingly he issued mandate to complainant and accordingly issued NACH/ECS/ Standing instructions to his bank to debit EMI/ outstanding dues of Rs.25,050/- towards repayment of loan as per agreement from his account bearing no.20710100044460 of FEDERAL Bank Ltd. Thereafter, the complainant sent the said mandate to NPCL (National Payment Corporation Ltd) for registration to avail SCCH-23 4 CC.No.12929/2023 NACH/ECS facility. Accordingly the EMI directly deducted in the account of accused on relevant date and credited to the account of complainant. However, the auto debit mandate represented by complainant to the accused bank dated 27.07.2023 amounting of Rs.25,050/- was returned "Balance Insufficient" on same day, as per transaction ID FDRL7022712220000239. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 07.08.2023 calling upon the accused to repay the due amount within 15 days of its receipts. The said notice returned as Unserved as absent on 24.08.2023. But thereafter the accused had neither replied to the notice nor repaid the amount. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 25(1) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Hence, this complaint had been filed.
3. After the complaint was presented to the Court, on 30.09.2023 the Court had taken cognizance of the offence and Since there was sufficient materials to proceed against SCCH-23 5 CC.No.12929/2023 the accused it was registered in register No.III and the process issued to the accused.
4. On receipt of the summons the accused has appeared before the Court and secured bail. He was furnished with the prosecution papers. The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. He had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant thereafter had examined its Authorized Signatory / power of attorney holder of complainant company by name Smt. Kusuma Pawan Chokira as PW.2. Before, her this case was presented from one Siddi Satish Shetty, he filed his sworn statement affidavit, but thereafter, he left the company. Thereafter, the complainant company substituted his representative, thereafter complainant finance examined its representative by PW.2. PW.2 got marked Ex.P1 to 06 documents. The accused cross examined the PW.2. He has not chosen to lead defence evidence. In the statement of accused under SCCH-23 6 CC.No.12929/2023 section 313 of Cr.P.C. he stated that he had not availed the loan and notice was not served.
6. Heard the arguments of complainant and accused side. Perused the materials on record. The following point arises for my consideration:-
● Point no.1:- Whether the complainant proves that accused had borrowed loan and agreed to electronic fund transfer of monthly installment from an account maintained by him bearing no.20710100044460 of FEDERAL Bank Ltd. towards discharge of legally enforceable debt? ● Point no.2:- Whether complainant further proves that the mandatory requirements of section 25 (1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w 138 of N.I. Act have been complied with?SCCH-23 7 CC.No.12929/2023
● Point no.3:- If so, accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 25 (1) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act? ● Point no.4:- What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 :- Affirmative. Point No.2 :- Affirmative. Point No.3 :- Affirmative. Point No.4:- As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 and 2:- The complainant in support of his case examined its Power of attorney holder Smt. Kusuma Pawan Chokira as PW.2. In her evidence affidavit she has reiterated the complaint averments and got marked Ex.P1 to 06 documents. The advocate for accused cross- examined the PW.2 and raised defence that the legal notice had not served to him and he paid the EMI regularly.
9. The accused had not examined evidence on his behalf. The accused had not specifically denied loan transaction. SCCH-23 8 CC.No.12929/2023 The accused had not denied the account number bearing no.20710100044460 of FEDERAL Bank Ltd., belongs to him and maintained by him. The accused not specifically denied that he agreed to electronic fund transfer was initiated by him for payment of EMI for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. He had also not specifically denied that an amount of Rs.25050/- dated 27.07.2023 was rejected due to Balance Insufficient.
10. To attract the offence U/sec 25 (1) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, makes it an offense for a person to initiate an electronic funds transfer that is dishonored due to insufficient funds or exceeding the pre- arranged credit limit in their account. The Provision applies only when the transfer is for the payment of a debt or liability and was initiated according to the system provider's guidelines, as outlined in the provisos to the section. Section 25 (5) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, clears that the provisions of Chapter XVII of the SCCH-23 9 CC.No.12929/2023 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall apply to the dishonour of electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit. Chapter XVII of N.I. Act, deals with Of Penalties in case of Dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the Accounts, which was having Section 138 to 148. Accordingly the complainant is required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt for which electronic transfer in question was agreed. As per to the the Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, there is presumption in favour of complainant, as to the existence of the legally enforceable debt or other liability. But the said presumption is rebuttable.
11. The learned counsel of the complainant has argued that the accused not denied the consent given by him for electronic fund transfer for payment of monthly installment as per Ex.P2. The accused has not denied the loan transaction. He has not raised any defence. There is no probable defence at all. Therefore there is initial presumption available U/s 139 of N.I. Act, and accused SCCH-23 10 CC.No.12929/2023 has failed to rebut the said presumption by any evidence. Hence, the accused has to be convicted.
12. Per contra the learned advocate for accused argued that he paid the installments regularly, the complainant has not produced the agreement and not produced loan documents. The legal notice issued by the complainant was not served to the accused. Therefore, there was no cause of action arose to him to file this case. Hence, he sought for acquittal.
13. On considering the materials placed on record, as per Ex.P2 it clears that it is ACH return report. As such transaction was failed with Ref No.KA3025CD0446477, which the account hold name is Mahammad Unais G and account no.20710100044460, IFSC Code is FDRL0002071, amount of Rs.25050/- dated 27.07.2023, rejection reason was Balance insufficient. The accused has not denied the said document specifically. It is not the defence of the accused that he never agreed to electronic SCCH-23 11 CC.No.12929/2023 fund transfer for payment debt by monthly installment from his said account maintained at Fedral Bank Ltd. As such As per U/sec 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and Section 139 of the N.I Act, there is an initial presumption in favour of complainant that the accused agreed to electronic fund transfer from his account to complainant's account for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. Until the presumptions are rebutted the accused consented or agreed for electronic funds transfer was initiated by him for the discharge, has to be presumed to be correct.
14. In view of the above provisions of law there is an initial presumption in favour of the complainant that the accused towards discharge of legal liabilities of initiated the electronic fund transfer of Rs.25,050/- per month as per Ex.P-2. It is now for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing some probable evidence in his defence.
SCCH-23 12 CC.No.12929/2023
15. In the present case on the hand, the accused submits no defence evidence on his side. He raised defence that the notice was not served to him. It is relevant to note here that the accused has not denied the address shown in the complaint. As per the Ex.P5 notice had issued to his admitted address. But it was returned as addressee absent. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, issuance of notice to the correct address of the other side itself is sufficient. If he has taken defence that it was not served, he has to prove the same. In the present case the accused has not produced any documents to show that it was not served to him. He has not disclosed his new address. He has also not disclosed if he changed his address, whether he intimated the same to the complainant or not. In such circumstances the defence of accused that notice not served is not believable or admissible. Except this there is no defence at all. Absolutely no defence at all to rebutted the presumptions. As per Ex.P1 to 6 it appears that the accused borrowed the loan and initiated electronic transfer for every month, but became defaulter. When the SCCH-23 13 CC.No.12929/2023 complainant submitted demand for installment dated 27.07.2023 it was rejected as Balance insufficient as per Ex.P2. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice as per Ex.P3 and 4, the ExP5 is the evident for it. As per Ex.P6 notice returned as Addressee absent. He also produced the statement of loan account. But it was not marked. As per the same on 27.07.2023 accused had to pay installment of Rs.25,050/- But it was rejected as in sufficient balance. It clears that accused became defaulter.
16. The complainant has clearly shown the accused initiated electronic transfer of fund to the complainant from his account at Fedaral Bank but failed to maintain the balance as on the date of deduction of amount. The presumption is rebuttable. The accused has to rebut the same by probable evidence. But the accused failed to rebutted the presumption. The complainant has proved that the electronic transfer of fund initiated by accused was for legally enforcible debt. But on 27.07.2023 due to insufficient balance in his account, it having been SCCH-23 14 CC.No.12929/2023 dishonored. Thereafter, notice Ex.P3 and 4 being the issued and same was served upon the accused. It was the first opportunity to deny the case of complainant or same was repaid already by giving the reply. But the accused not given any reply. As such it raises strong presumption that the amount was not paid. Therefore, this Court is opinion that, the complainant has succeeded in proving the existence of legally enforceable debt for which accused initiated electronic fund transfer, but failed to maintain sufficient balance. The complainant has complied the all conditions of section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 read with 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly this Court has answered Point no.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
17. Point no.3:- In view of the the above findings on point no.1 and 2 the complainant has proved that, accused was initiated electronic fund transfer for discharge of legally enforcible debt. Hence the accused is found guilty of an offence punishable U/sec 25 (1) of the Payment and SCCH-23 15 CC.No.12929/2023 Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w Sec. 138 of N.I act. Therefore, this Court has answered the point no.3 in the affirmative.
18. Point no.4:- In view of the above discussions and the findings on aforesaid points, this Court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercising the powers conferred under section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused is hereby found guilty for the offence punishable U/section 25 (1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
The bail bonds and surety bonds stand canceled.
The accused is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.35,000/- (Thirty five thousand only).
SCCH-23 16 CC.No.12929/2023
It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) shall be remitted to the government.
In default of the payment of the fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of Six Months.
If accused person served the sentence, it doesn't means she absolve from liability of payment of compensation, if the accused failed to pay the compensation, if even he will serve the sentence, the complainant is at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law.SCCH-23 17 CC.No.12929/2023
Office is to supply the copy of the judgment to the accused in free of cost.
[Directly typed by me in my lap top, corrected by me and then, pronounced by me in the open Court this the 11th day of November 2025].
(Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for complainant:-
PW.1 : Ms. Siddhi Satish Shetty PW.2 : Mrs.Kusuma Pavan Chokira
List of documents marked for complainant:-
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 ACH return report Ex.P.3 Notice U/Sec.25B of P & SS Act 2007 in Kannada Language Ex.P.4 Translated in English version of Ex.P3 Ex.P.5 Postal receipt Ex.P.6 Track Consignment with certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act List of witnesses examined for Accused:-
- None -
List of documents marked for Accused:-
- Nil -
(Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.