Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE

5. On 10/05/11, Sh. Sh. Atul Bansal, AR of the complainant got himself examined as CW­1 in which he tendered his affidavit in evidence which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/1. The power of attorney in favour of A.R. was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A. He got exhibited the original cheque(s) before the court as Ex. CW1/B & Ex. CW1/B1 and the original cheque returning memos, both dated 11/06/09 were exhibited as Ex. CW1/C & Ex. CW1/C1, the legal notice of demand dated 10/07/09 was exhibited as Ex. CW1/D, receipt of speed post was exhibited as Ex. CW1/E. The complaint was exhibited as Ex. CW1/F. The A.R. was cross­examined in which he admitted that in his affidavit Ex. CW1/1, there is mention of three cheques and three returning memos and not two cheques and returning memos as in the present case and this is merely a typographical error. He further stated that two loans were granted to the accused one for chassis and another for body of the vehicle. He also deposed that the vehicle of the accused was repossessed as per the terms of the agreement according to which if there are three defaults then vehicle can be repossessed and this was done approximately in March 2010 because the vehicle of the accused was hypothicated to the complainant. The witness further stated that though there were no specific orders of any authorised person for the repossession but general policies of informing the local police was followed. The witness admitted that vehicle of the accused has already been sold in June 2010 and the notice for the same was given to the accused before the sale of the same. The witness also admitted that one more case was filed by the complainant pertaining to the same loan transaction but the same was withdrawn by the complainant. The witness was cross­examined and discharged.