Subash Chander Sharma vs R K M Financiers Pvt Ltd

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter for short, referred to as District Forum -I], dated 2.12.2004 in Complaint Case No. 145 of 2000, Subhash Chander Sharma v. M/s. R.K.M. Financiers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

BRIEFLY the case of the Complainant is that under Tatkal Delivery Scheme he took loan from the OP for purchase of a Maruti Car. On 15.4.1997 he gave Rs. 90,000/ - as margin money plus Rs. 3,500/ - as registration charges plus Rs. 3,000/ - as documentation charges i.e., a total of Rs. 96,500/ - to the OP along with other documents. The documents included 24 filled undated signed cheques, one blank signed cheque by the guarantor Mrs. Sneh Sharma, one blank singed Stamp Paper, one blank signed paper along with Income Tax Return, Copy of sale deed of property and salary certificate from the employer. The complainant and guarantor were also made to sign some other blank forms such as Promissory Note, Debit Vouchers, Indemnity Bonds, blank receipt along with revenue stamp. Despite assurance of providing the vehicle within seven days the OP failed to do so and informed the Complainant that it will take one month for the delivery of the vehicle as the Tatkal Delivery Scheme had come to an end and advised the complainant to start repayment of loan by monthly instalments of Rs. 6,300/ - which the complainant did by giving bank draft dated 28.4.1997. The complainant paid the second instalment on 28.5.1997 but the vehicle was still not delivered. The complainant then informed the OPs that he was not interested in the purchase of the car and requested refund of the amount paid. It is averred that the OPs assured the complainant that the Bank Draft will be sent to him at his Dharamsala address but they failed to do so. The complainant then served a legal notice on 18.8.1997 calling upon OPs to refund Rs. 1,09,100/ - along with interest @ 18% per annum as well as return of all documents given by him and the guarantor, but no action was taken by the OPs and hence he initially filed a consumer complaint at Dharamsala but the same was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He then filed a complaint with District Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh seeking following relief: (1) The opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1,09,100/ - along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from April, 1997 till its realization. (2) The opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as the damages to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment, loss and injury suffered due to the negligence and deficient services rendered by the OPs. (3) The OPs be directed to send back all the filled -without date signed cheques taken as instalments security, from the complainant; the blank signed cheque taken from the guarantor of the complainant; the blank signed Astam paper, the blank signed paper and other documents which were got signed in blank by the complainant at the time of agreement for transaction on 15.4.1997 as referred/detailed in para 4 of the present complaint. (4) Costs of the complaint/litigation expenses. This complaint was initially disposed of on 12.1.2004 by relegating the complainant to seek redressal from a competent Civil Court. However, the complainant filed an appeal against this order of the District Forum -I and the case was remanded back to the District Forum -I for adjudication on merits by this State Commission.

THE version of the OPs is that the entire amount of Rs. 1,09,100/ - paid by the complainant was refunded to him based on his request. In support of their version the OPs have placed on record photocopies of Annexure R1, which is an application written by the complainant to the OPs requesting for refund of Rs. 1,09,100/ -. Annexure R2, which is the copy of the receipt dated 30.7.1997 and Annexure R3, which is the copy of the voucher dated 30.7.1997, which bears the signature of the complainant across the revenue stamp for the receipt of Rs. 1,09,100/ -. The original of these documents could not be produced as the same were burnt in a fire as stated by the OPs and DDR No. 31, dated 14.8.2000 had been registered with the police regarding this fire. The learned Counsel for the OPs also submitted that the original register containing debit entries was produced before the District Forum, Dharamsala.

IN their analysis of the case the learned District Forum found that the signatures of the complainant on Annexures R1 to R3 tally with his signatures on the sworn affidavit and thus in the absence of any evidence of any handwriting expert to the contrary, held that the amount in question has been refunded to the complainant. Thus finding no merit in the complaint the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order of District Forum -I, the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, record of the complaint case was summoned from the District forum -I and notices were sent to the respondents. Mr. K.S. Bhangu, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant whereas Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents/OPs. However, on the date of hearing the arguments, none appeared on behalf of the respondents/OPs who were proceeded against ex parte.

MR . K.S. Bhangu, Advocate submitted that the signatures of the complainant on Annexures R1 to R3 are not disputed but what is disputed is the contents as the same were filled later because signatures of the complainant on these documents were fraudulently obtained by the respondents/OPs. He further pointed out that there is no revenue stamp affixed on Annexure R2 and the original documents have not been produced. He further added that in Annexure R1, the text had been filed to adjust the signatures of the complainant obtained on a blank paper. His next submission was that Annexure R3 is part of the original file and the OP did not take this stand that the original file has been burnt in their written statement. Also in the cross -examination of OP No. 2, he on record admitted that no complaint of fire was lodged with the Fire Brigade. Finally he submitted that there is no other record except Annexures R2 and R3 to confirm the payment having been made.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant and have gone through the record of the complaint case as well as the impugned order. The sole issue in question is that whether the amount of Rs. 1,09,100/ - has been refunded to the complainant or not. The appellants/complainants version is that Annexures R1 to R3 have been fabricated utilizing the blank papers signed by the complainant at the time of obtaining the loan and that the original of these documents have not been produced to authenticate the same. In this context it is relevant to mention that the OP No. 2 in his sworn affidavit has said that the original documents were produced in the District Forum, Dharamsala and they were later burnt in a fire. In this context Para 10 of the reply to the questionnaire in the form of affidavit of Sh. Alamjit Singh Mann and Para 3 of his other affidavit dated 2.8.2002 are relevant. The appellant/complainant has not anywhere rebutted these sworn statements of OP No. 2. It is therefore quite logical to accept that the original documents of Annexures R1 to R3 existed and these were produced before the District Forum, Dharamsala but were later burnt in fire. The appellant/complainant is an educated and aware person who may have signed some blank documents at the time of taking loan but to expect such a person to sign on revenue stamp and give blank receipts is not understandable. The appellant/complainant has led no independent or cogent evidence to prove that he signed Annexures R1 to R3 as blank documents. It is also clear from the perusal of these documents that the appellant/complainant has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,09,100/ -. Based on the evidence on record, we are of the firm view that the appellant/complainant has already been refunded the amount paid by him to the OPs. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the complaint is devoid of any merit and the impugned order dismissing the same is just, fair and legal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as it lacks substance and the impugned order is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs of appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.