Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Vehicle loan in M/S Reliance Capital Ltd vs Mr. Nagesh. B on 22 October, 2021Matching Fragments
The complainant filed this complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. The brief contents of the complaint stated as under:
3 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019 The Complainant company is a limited company, incorporated as per companies Act and in the course of its financial services, the complainant company introduced various scheme for disbursing Personal loan / business loan etc. It is further stated that, the accused approached the Complainant for vehicle loan by submitting necessary documents and after utilizing the said loan, the accused failed to make the payment towards discharge of his part liability. It is further stated that, towards discharge of his part liability the accused issued one Cheque bearing No.208785 dated: 2012 2016 for a sum of Rs.31,407/ drawn on Canara Bank., in favour of the Complainant. It is further stated that, as per the instructions of the accused, the said cheque was presented through their banker HDFC Bank Ltd., Richmond Road, Bangalore, but the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons "Insufficient Funds." Hence, the Complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 19012017 by RPAD and the said 4 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019 notice was served on 10.02.2017. Despite receipt of notice, the accused is failed to made any payment and not replied to the said notice. Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for punishing the accused U/sec.138 of NI Act and also for grant of compensation to the complainant.
8 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019
10. Accused Sri.Nagesh .B. examined himself as Dw.1 and deposed that, himself and his brother one Shashikumar approached the complainant company to avail vehicle loan and the complainant company agreed to sanction the vehicle loan to him. before sanctioning of the vehicle loan the complainant company had taken Xerox copy of Aadhaar card, Bank pass book statement, Photos and five blank cheques duly signed by him as a security for the repayment of the vehicle loan and at that time, his brother one Shashikumar was present and he witnessed the said transaction. Further deposed that, the complainant company had not sanctioned the vehicle loan to him and the sanctioned vehicle loan was not disbursed to his account. Further deposed that, he purchased the vehicle Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA41/A8863 with cash and it was registered on 11112013. Hence, he had not received the legal notice dt:19012017 issued by the complainant company. Therefore, he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the 9 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019 complainant as alleged in the complaint. Hence, prays to discharge and acquit him in the above case.
11. Another witness Sri.Shashikumar.B. examined as DW.2 and deposed that, himself and his brother i.e., accused in this case, approached the complainant company to avail vehicle loan. In the year January 2013 the complainant company agreed to sanction the vehicle loan to him. before sanctioning of the vehicle loan the complainant company had taken Xerox copy of Aadhaar card, Bank pass book statement, Photos and five blank cheques duly signed by the accused as a security for the repayment of the vehicle loan and at that time, he was present and he has witnessed the said transaction. Further deposed that, the complainant company had not sanctioned the vehicle loan to the accused and the sanctioned vehicle loan was not disbursed to the account of the accused. Further deposed that, the accused purchased the vehicle 10 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019 Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA41/A8863 with cash and it was registered on 11112013.
20. Further learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CC NO.3420/2012, I have gone through this judgment, the facts and circumstances are different and this judgment is not authoritative judgment to be considered and relied upon by this court. Hence, it cannot be considered.
21. If loan amount is not disbursed to the account of the accused, then why he did not give requisition to the bank for stoppage of payment. Atleast he could have given notice to the 23 SCCH19 CC No.15071/2019 complainant alleging that, though the loan is sanctioned, but it is not disbursed. Hence, it is clear that the accused was well known of issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant. Hence mere denial of sanctioning of vehicle loan, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the cheque was not issued for the purpose repayment of loan amount. The accused has not produced any piece of documentary evidence in order to substantiate the contentions. Further, nothing damaging the veracity of the evidence of the complainant as elicited through his cross examination. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.