FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT           

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY,   PRESIDENT

Short facts given rise to the present complaint are as under:-

The complainnat was an employee of OP-2 S. Velmurugan, Chairman SRM Charitable Trust. He had given signed blank cheques and documents to the OP-2 for crediting salary to his Bank Account. OP-1 M/s L & T Finance Ltd., vide its letter dated 28.03.2013 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 4,23,000/- was sanctioned  to him against Loan Agreement No. APC153012R1300-700128 for purchasing of a GM-Chevrolet Enjoy 8 STR luxurious car though he never approached the OP-1 to sanction car loan. Complainant further alleges that OP-2 had availed the car loan from the OP-1 by producing his signed blank cheques and documents and also  asked him to execute documents. Complainant being an employee of OP-2 signed loan documents on good faith. OP-2 utilized the signed blank cheques and documents. OP-2 is guarantor/co applicant of the car loan. On 25.02.2014, complainant issued protest letter to OP-1  with a request  not to encash remaining cheques and seize  the luxurious  car, sell the car and also realize the balance loan amount.  OP-2 is  absconded . The OP-1 issued several  notices and claimed Rs. 99,332/- out of total loan amount though the luxurious car is under the possession of OP-1/Financer. Thus, the demand claims by OP-1 is illegal.  Alleging deficiency is in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed the present complaint.

            Despite service of notices of the complaint, the OPs did not turn up to contest the case by filing WV to defend their case within the statutory period as provided under the CP Act, 2019. Thus, the case proceeded ex parte against the OPs.  In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has filed evidence by  way of his own affiedavit wherein he has  reiterated the facts averred in the complaint and has placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint petition.

            Ld. Counsel for the complainant submited that being an employee of OP-2, complainant had given signed blank chques and documents to the OP-2 for crediting his salary in the Bank Account. He further explained how the OP-2 utalized those signed blank cheques and documents. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant  that the OP-2 availed the car loan by producing signed blank cheques and the complainant never purchased G M Chevrolet  Enjoy 08 STR luxurious car on availing term loan against Loan Agreement No. APC153012R1300700128. It has been vehmently argued on behalf of the complainant that OP-2 committed fraud, the OP-1 has no right to demand any outstanding dues of loan from the complainant and OP-2 is liable to pay the loan liability.

            It is also pertinent to mention that car loan was sanctioned in the name of the complainant and 2/3 EMIs were encashed against loan account. It is the case of the complainant that OP-2 committed fraud by producing his signed blank cheques and documents of the OP-1 with a view to procure car loan illegally. Thus, the duty case upon the complainant to lodge FIR to local PS about the fraud, wrongful and illegal acts of OP-2. Complainant did not lodge any FIR against the OP-2 rather praying for compesnation and litigation cost from the OP-1 L & T Finance Ltd.  There is no explanation on the part of the complainant as to why the handed over sevral signed blank cheques and documents  to the OP-2 being his employer. For the sake of argument, if we presumed that the complainant had given blank signed cheques and documents to OP-2 for crediting salary in his Bank Account, then the question cropped up before  us that only one cheque is to be required to credit the salary.  Complainant admitted in the complaint petition that on good faith he signed loan documents. Not a single document is forthcoming on the part of the complainant that the OP-2 credited salary of the complainant to his Bank Account. Except the word of mouth there is no documentary evidence to show that being an employee of OP-2, complainant’s salary was credited to his Bank Account. Thus, we are of the view that the complainant  availed financial services from the OP-1 for purchasing GM chevrolet enjoy 8 STR car against Loan Agreement  No. APC153012R1300700128 and he is a defaulter. Photocopy of vehicle inventory report dated 29.04.2014 goes to show that OP-1 reseized the vehicle through Shriram Automal India Ltd. OP-1 is a financial institute and they sanctioned different kinds of loan to different customers on certain terms and conditions. Complainant is a defaulter in paying EMIs against loan agreement. On bare perusal of the complaint petition, we do not find any allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP-1. Thus, claiming of balance loan amount is justified and the allegation of the complainant is concocted. Considering the contents of the complaint, documentary evidence on record and arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, we are of the view that the complainant has not made out his case for compensation and the OP-1 has not committed any deficiency in servie and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complaint is required to be dismissed.

Hence,

Oredered

That the complaint case being No.  117/2018 is dismissed ex parte against the OPs. There will be no order as to costs.

All pending interlocatory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of costs as mandated by the CP        Act, 2019. The Judgement be uploaded forthwith  on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to Record Room.