Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[ The Complainant Society has filed this private complaint case against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

According to the Complainant, it is a Limited Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and doing financial business.

3. It is further stated by the Complainant that the Complainant introduced vehicle loan facilities for the benefit of their customers. The Accused had approached the Complainant Company for vehicle loan and accordingly the Complainant Company had sanctioned the vehicle loan and Accused had agreed to repay the loan amount in EMIs. The Accused had entered into a vehicle loan Agreement bearing No.5000965223. There was a due an amount of Rs.1,51,824/- payable by the Accused and towards the said due the Accused had issued a cheque bearing No.039471 dated 05.12.2015 for Rs.1,51,824/- towards payment of due amount and assured the Complainant Company that he would maintain sufficient balance in his Account. When the said cheque presented for encashment same was dishonoured for the reason that 'Account Closed'. After dishonor of cheque Complainant got issued legal notice on 11.12.2015 through Advocate by RPAD. Said legal notice returned as unserved with an endorsement that in correct address. Inspite of issuance of legal notice Accused failed to comply the demand notice, i.e., he has not paid cheque amount. Thereby Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. These facts constrained the Complainant to file present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

16. It is further stated by the Complainant that the Complainant introduced vehicle loan facilities for the benefit of their customers. The Accused had approached the Complainant Company for vehicle loan and accordingly the Complainant Company had sanctioned the vehicle loan and Accused had agreed to repay the loan amount in EMIs. The Accused had entered into a vehicle loan Agreement bearing No.5000965223. There was a due an amount of Rs.1,51,824/- payable by the Accused and towards the said due the Accused had issued a cheque bearing No.039471 dated 05.12.2015 for Rs.1,51,824/- towards payment of due amount and assured the Complainant Company that he would maintain sufficient balance in his Account. When the said cheque presented for encashment same was dishonoured for the reason that 'Account Closed'. After dishonor of cheque Complainant got issued legal notice on 11.12.2015 through Advocate by RPAD. Said legal notice returned as unserved with an endorsement that in correct address. Inspite of issuance of legal notice Accused failed to comply the demand notice, i.e., he has not paid cheque amount. Thereby Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. These facts constrained the Complainant to file present complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

17. I have perused oral and documentary evidence submitted by Complainant as well as Accused. On careful consideration of materials available on record it appears to be that, in the present case it is not in dispute that the Accused has obtained vehicle loan from the Complainant Company. It is not in dispute that the Accused has not paid entire loan amount and he paid some amount.

18. The Complainant relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Those documents are as follows;

Ex.P.1 Cheque, Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Accused on Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 Bank memo, Ex.P.3 Office Copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.4 Postal Cover, Ex.P.5 Returned Postal Cover, Ex.P.5(a) Notice kept in Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 GPA, Ex.P.7 Account Statement, Ex.P.8Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum Guarantee Agreement, Ex.P.9 KYC documents, Ex.P.10 Vehicle Valuation Report and Ex.P.11 Sale Receipt.

36. Now, another question would be whether Complainant Company has exactly mentioned due amount on cheque or mentioned higher amount than actual due amount? To this question my answer is in affirmative saying exact due amount has been mentioned on cheque. I am saying so for the following reason;

(a) In the present case it is not in dispute Accused had availed vehicle loan from the Complainant Company. It is also not in dispute entire loan amount is not repaid by the Accused.