State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bell Poly Moulders Pvt Ltd. vs Reliance Capital Limited on 8 October, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
IN
THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
Date
of Decision : 08.10.2010
Complaint
No. 08/34
Bell Poly Moulders Pvt Ltd.,
Office at Flat No. 4,
2372-74,
Sachdeva Building, Ist floor,
Gurudwara Road, Karol bagh,
New Delhi
.. Complainants.
VS
1. Reliance Capital Limited
Consumer Finance Division
Through its
Director/Authorized Representative
260-261, Dev House
Tribunal Complex, Ishwar Nagar,
New Friends Colony, New
Delhi-25.
2. Global Marketing
Through Authorized
Representative
B-314, R.G. Complex,
Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
3. Amit Wig,
C/o Global Marketing,
B-314, R.G. Complex,
Motia Khan, Paharganj,
New Delhi.
.. Opposite Parties.
CORAM
Justice B.A. Zaidi,
Presiding
M.L. Sahni,
Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
M.L. Sahni, Member(Judicial)
1. The complainant, which is Pvt. Ltd. Company registered under the Companies Act, was allegedly approached by OP-1, through OP-2 & 3 for the sanction of loan on 10.12.2007 and it was agreed that OP-1 would disburse amount of Rs. 36.46 lacs to the Complainant against pledging of the Registration Covers of their cars and the OP-3 assured the Complainant that after completing hypothecation formalities with ICICI Bank Ltd. & receiving N.O.C. from the said Bank, loan amount would be credited to the Bank account of the Complainant.
2. It is alleged that OP No. 3 on or around 31.12.2007, informed the Complainant that sum of Rs. 36.46 lacs had been sanctioned and it would be disbursed soon after N.O.C. is received from the ICICI Bank. Accordingly, the complainant issued 36 Post Dated cheques bearing Numbers 433602 to 433537 dated from 5th January, 2008 to 5th December, 2010 drawn on the Federal bank Limited, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi in favour of the O.P.-1 with clear understanding that OP-1 would disburse the amount to the Complainant by crediting the same in its Current Bank Account bearing No. 13825500010611 maintained with the Federal Bank Limited , Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi. However, nothing was heard from the OPs nor the loan amount was credited to the account of the Complainant and thereafter on 10.01.2008 the Authorized Representative of the Complainant went to the office of the OP-2 and 3 and discussed the matter with them. The complainant then, called-upon the OP No. 2 & 3 to return the original Registration Covers of the Cars as the complainant was no more interested in availing the Loan facility. The OP no. 2 & 3 returned the R.C. of Wagon-R Car and promised to deliver the original RCs of Mercedez Car and Honda City Car back to the Complainant within a day. The written acknowledgment of the OP No. 2 is annuexed as A-2.
3. Since the Registration Cover Notes of two cars were not delivered back to the complainant nor amount of loan was credited in its bank account, the complainant had no other option but to get stopped payment against the post-dated cheques. It was informed by OP no. 2 & 3 that No Objection Certificate could not be received from the ICICI Bank Limited and under these circumstances loan amount could not be disbursed to the complainant. On the asking of Complainant the OP- 2 & 3 agreed that the original RCs of two cars and the 36 post-dated cheques would be returned to it.
4. On 23.01.2008, the Complainant learnt through letters issued by OP-1 that the amount of Rs. 36.46 lacs has been disbursed and the Complainant immediately informed OP-1 that they have received no loan, nor have they been returned the Post Dated cheques alongwith original RCs of their vehicles. Nothing was heard from the O.P.-1 despite receipt of the letter dated 23.01.2008 of the Complainant and the Complainant then served a legal notice dated 28.01.2008, calling upon the O.P.s to return the cheques and the RCs within 7 days, but to no response from OP-1.
5. Failing to get any reply from either of the Ops, the complainant then filed the present complaint praying for an award of Rs. 46 lacs as compensation for loss of reputation etc. with direction to the OPs to return the original RCs of two cars BMW and Honda City bearing No. DL-6CJ-5135 and Car No. DL 4C-AB-2072, alongwith 36 cheques.
6. While none appeared on behalf of OP 2 & 3, who had to be proceed against ex-parte, OP-1 contested the complaint by filing written reply admitting that 36 post-dated cheques were received by the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 & 3. However, OP no. 1pleaded that they have since already initiated the criminal proceedings for criminal breach of trust committed by the OP no. 2 & 3 as such, the post-dated cheques issued by the complainant being material evidence might be required by the police authorities during investigation. OP No. 1 would not in a position to return the said cheques immediately. OP No. 1 vide reply dated 19.02.2008 had assured the complainant that after coming to know about the criminal breach of trust committed by the OP no. 2 & 3 none of the post-dated cheques issued by the complainant would be presented and that OP-1 had never received the original RCs of the vehicles either from the complainant or from the OP 2 & 3.
7. The complainant filed their rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mukesh Khanna , the Authorized Representative of the complainant company.
8. During the proceedings, on 21.01.2009, OP-1 returned the original R.C., N.O.c. and 33 post-dated cheques, which were accepted by the complainants A.R. Shri Mukesh Khanna, in pursuance of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. Later on , OP-1 returned two more cheques , submitting that no further cheque was available with them and that as per the instruction of the complainant, the payment with regard to the remaining one cheque had been stopped.
9. Thus from the above stated facts it is abundantly clear that all the Reliefs as claimed in this complaint vide their Legal Notice dated 28.01.2008 issued by the complainant and as prayed at Sr. Nos 2 &3 have been satisfied and the only relief remained for our adjudication , is with regard to compensation.
10. Hence, we have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and of the OP-1. We have perused the material on record.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant with regard to claim for compensation that the reputation of the complainant had been tarnished before its bankers; that the complainant had unnecessarily been dragged into litigation because of laxicity on the part of the OPs, the complainants directors have been unnecessarily harassed. The Managing Director Shri Sanjeev Kapoor who is the signatory to the cheques has been living in a state of great shock and fear for the illegal acts on the part of the OPs. The Complainant and its directors are well-reputed having a turnover of around 19 crores per annum. Thus its credibility had been put on stake due to the malafide conduct of the OPs and as such the complainant is entitled to receive damages amounting to Rs. 46 lacs from the OPs. The complainant was made to sign cheques worth Rs. 46,54,620/- towards the security for the loan amount which was yet to be disbursed to it. In all fairness the complainant agreed to part away with such a huge amount without receiving a single rupee from the OP no. 1. This act on the part of the OP No. 1 is grossly negligent whereby it has put the complainant and its directors in a state of limbo. The cheques so issued by the complainant have to be stopped from payment and charges etc towards the same have to be borne by the complainant.
12. We have thoughtfully considered the facts of this case in the light of above submissions made on behalf of the complainant. We fully agree with the complainant that the conduct of OPs in this entire episode establish that non-returning of the cheques and the RCs of the vehicles against which the loan was to be disbursed, despite issuance of letter dated 23.01.2008 and legal notice dated 28.01.2008, tantamount to deficiency-in-service for which all the three OPs are jointly and severely liable to compensate the complainant. However, we found the claim for damages too exaggerated. Loss of reputation cannot be ascertained in terms of money.
13. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct all the Ops to pay to the complainant as a token compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousands only) including cost of litigation, jointly and severely within thirty days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they shall have to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on this amount.
14. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
15. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice B.A. Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member sk