Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant availed loan from OP NO.1 to purchase an Indica car on  instalment basis of Rs.5,430/- per EMI. The total numbers of instalments  were sixty. It is alleged inter alia that the husband of the complainant had issued sixty post dated cheques drawn in favour of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Nayagarh. It is alleged that on 19.6.2005 the complainant had issued the cheque bearing No. 546585 for an amount of Rs.5,430/-.  She came to know that this particular cheque was not issued for clearance and cheque has been dishonoured. She alleged that the dishonoured cheque has not been returned to her. So, finding the deficiency in service with the OPs, she filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to him disputed cheque No. 061174 dated 7.10.2008 for an amount of Rs.5,430/- issued by the husband of the complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Nayagarh. The copy of the bounced cheque with Bank intimation is filed by OP No.1. Since the entire amount has not been paid back, NOC was not issued. However, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

5.      OP No.2 denied his liability on the ground that he has disposed of deposited cheques taking into account the balance into consideration.

6.      After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                                       “xxx   xxx   xxx

The complainant has suffered mentally but the amount claimed towards her suffering appears to be exorbitant. In our considered opinion in order to mitigate the lose and compensate mental agony the complainant is entitle to sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only. For the gross deficiency of service  the complainant is also entitle to get loan clearance certificate from OP No.1. Accordingly the complaint is to be disposed of. Hence it is ordered the complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed. The complaint against OP No.1 is allowed in part. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only towards compensation from OP No.1. The OP No.1 is liable to pay aforesaid sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to complainant. We direct the OP No.1 to pay aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only within 30 days of this order along with the loan clearance certificate. On failure of the OP No.1 to comply with the aforesaid direction within stipulated period, the complainant shall have right to proceed as per law.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the learned District Forum has not taken into consideration the written version in to consideration and passed a wrong order. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. But learned counsel for respondent supports impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      After hearing counsel for both parties and on going through the DFR and impugned order, it is found that OP No.2 has admitted to have encashed  cheque No. 061174 dated 7.10.2008 for Rs. 5,430/- and paid to OP No.1 whereas OP No.1 refused to have received the same. Once the drawee Bank has already confirmed the payment, it is for OP No.1 to explain how it has not reached. Learned District Forum has analyzed the matter in detail. We are in agreement with the finding of learned District Forum that Rs.5,430/- has been deposited with OP No.1 but same has not been accounted for which NOC has not been issued. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

10.    In the result, we are of the view that the amount being paid to the account of the complainant, NOC should be issued. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is higher compensation and ordered by the learned District Forum and the same should be considered. We consider the same and reduce the compensation amount from RS.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for the reasons  that disputed amount is only Rs.5,430/-. Therefore, while affirming the impugned order, we modify the impugned order by asking OP No.1 to issue NOC in favour of the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from today failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made. Rest part of the impugned order remained unaltered.

11.    The appeal is disposed of. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

       Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.