Consumer Commission directs finance firm to pay Rs 55 lakh

The Delhi state consumer forum has directed a private finance company to pay Rs 50 lakh as a fine for filing false cases of cheques bouncing and to pay Rs 5.1 lakh to a Delhi resident who was harassed by the firm.
The state consumer commission also observed that the courts were flooded with cases relating to dishonoured cheques, but a large number of them were filed on false grounds.
It directed the financing firm, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, now known as IndusInd Bank ltd, to deposit Rs 50 lakh with the consumer welfare fund of the state commission and pay Rs 5.1 lakh to Delhi resident Krishan Kumar Dhankhar, who had filed a complaint against the company.

Dhankhar had said in the complaint that his trailer engine was forcibly taken away by the company's employees in June 2005 on the false premise that he not paid back a loan.
The bench headed by judicial member N P Kaushik wondered how many such false cases had been filed by the firm.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that the Indian courts are flooded with cases under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A large number of such cases are filed on false grounds," it said.

"Against how many borrowers it has filed false cases ... is anybody's guess," the bench said.

The bench said, in view of "the enormity of the business" carried out by the firm, "the ends of justice shall be met if it is directed to deposit an amount of Rs 50 lakh to the consumer welfare fund of the state maintained by this commission".
According to Dhankhar's complaint, he had purchased an engine from Ashok Leyland Ltd.
The company sanctioned a loan of Rs 8.5 lakh and after adding interest to the principal amount, Rs 9,64,750 was to be repaid to the firm in instalments or EMIs of Rs 28,375 for 34 months, it said.
The complainant alleged that he was not given a copy of the agreement but had handed over 39 blank cheques to the firm in 2004.

He said there was some "confusion" with the firm over the period of EMIs.
He alleged that on June 13, 2005, some men attacked him while he was plying the vehicle and took it away, alleging non-payment of outstanding dues.
The complaint further stated that the firm sold the vehicle to a third person at a throwaway price without giving him any notice. In 2006, the firm allegedly filed false cheque bounce cases against him after filling the blank cheques he had submitted.
Dhankhar filed a complaint against the company seeking recovery of a certain amount before a district forum which dismissed it, observing that he could not challenge the right of the firm to repossess the vehicle, as per their agreement.

It also had held that there was no evidence to show that Dhankhar made any effort to report the matter to the police and file a complaint in a court of law.
He challenged the lower forum's order before the state commission which took the view that after repossessing the engine, the firm misused the blank cheques handed over by Dhankhar in 2004.
It also noted that the firm filled up two cheques fraudulently only to institute cheque-dishonour cases against Dhankhar.