G.S.T.MOTORS vs R.ELANCHEZHIAN

THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 75/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant.

THE complainant/respondent sought a direction to the opposite party to pay the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 60,000 with interest @ 24% from 13.3.2001 with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost. According to him, even after maturity, the opposite party did not repay the money. In 2000, instead of paying the maturity amount, they dragged on the payment till 13.3.2001 when they took back the fixed deposit certificates and instead promised to pay the amount after three months for which they executed a promissory note and issued 3 post-dated cheques each for Rs. 1, 200 towards interest for three months. When the complainant''s father was admitted in the hospital for treatment of heart ailment, the opposite party did not oblige the complainant by settling the claim. When the complainant deposited the post-dated cheques, they were dishonoured stating funds had not been arranged. The opposite party resisted the complaint contending as follows : The complainant was a private money lender. The opposite party used to borrow from him for his Auto Business Consultancy. The complainant adopted unfair trade practice in the collection of principal and interest. He refused to give vouchers for payment of interest or the refund of the principal amount. The opposite party received a loan of Rs. 60,000 on 4.7.1998 and executed two promissory notes for Rs. 30,000 each in favour of the complainant. The complainant compelled the opposite party to issue separate cash receipts on 4.7.1998 in a printed form. The opposite party returned the loan amount before the due date, but due to his urgent needs, he received from the complainant a sum of Rs. 60,000 on 5.7.1998 with interest @ 24% p.a. As demanded by the complainant, the opposite party executed two promissory notes on 5.7.1999 for Rs. 30,000 each in favour of the complainant. He was paying interest regularly and also returned the loan amount of Rs. 60,000 before the due date. But the opposite party did not return the promissory notes. The opposite party returned the loan amount of Rs. 60,000 with due interest of Rs. 3,600 by cash to the complainant on 5.7.2001 but the complainant did not return the promissory notes, receipts and the three cheques issued in favour of R. Mahalakshmi, since they had closed their loan account. The three cheques were issued by the partnership firm, Venus Services by the partner in favour of one R. Mahalakshmi and the three cheques were dishonoured by the drawer. The drawer and the drawee were in noway connected with the complainant. The complaint was not maintainable. The opposite party if at all was only a debtor, only a civil suit would lie.

The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and by order dated 29.11.2001 directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 4.7.1998 and also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards damages and cost and Rs. 2,000.

IT is as against that the present appeal has been filed. It is not in dispute that the opposite party had received Rs. 60,000 and had given fixed deposit receipts to the complainant. They are evidenced by Exs. A1 and A2. They are dated 4.7.1998. Since the opposite party did not repay the money due under the deposit receipts on maturity they executed promissory notes on 5.9.1999 and since they were unable to discharge the promissory notes also they had the time extended by changing the original date of 5.9.1999 to 13.3.2001 in the promissory notes under Exs. A3 and A4. They had issued 3 cheques in the name of Mahalakshmi mother of the complainant for Rs. 1,200 each towards interest for 3 months and these cheques were also returned for want of funds as could be seen from Ex. A6. To the legal notice demanding payment the opposite party had replied stating that they had already discharged the liability. If really, they had discharged the money due to the complainant the opposite party could have produced their Bank account and proved discharge but they did not do so. It had been clearly made out that the opposite party had not repaid the money and had been evading payment. The District Forum rightly found that the cause of action arose under Exs. A1 and A2 deposit receipts and not under the promissory notes Exs. A3 and A4 and that, therefore, the complaint was maintainable. However, with regard to rate of interest @ 18%, we are inclined to reduce the same to 12%. Again, the District Forum has awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation which we feel is on the high side. We reduce it to Rs. 5,000.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part; the order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 to the complainant with interest @ 12% with a compensation of Rs. 5,000. IN other respects, the order of the District Forum will stand. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.