KIRAN SIKRI Vs. SHARAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 13.12.2007, amounting to Rs. 10,000, for having suffered immensely in terms of reputation, physical discomfort, emotional suffering and also having been forced to approach the District Forum for return of post -dated cheques and issue of No Dues Certificate and having suffered threats of the recovery agents, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) WE have perused the impugned order, the District Forum has given following directions to the respondent:

(3.) ALLEGATIONS of the appellant in brief are that he applied to the respondent for a car loan to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. The respondent sanctioned this amount which was repayable in 35 EMIs of Rs. 8,808 per month. The appellant delivered 35 post -dated cheques of Rs. 8,808 each. But due to the inflated rate of interest, the appellant changed her mind and applied to the respondent to cancel the loan on 22.11.2004, the respondent accepted her request and cancelled the loan. Consequently the loan was never disbursed. The appellant requested the respondent to return all post -dated cheques which were handed over to the respondent at the time of sanctioning of the loan. The respondent assured return of all post -dated cheques. Later on respondent started presenting the post -dated cheques in spite of the fact that loan was never availed by the appellant. Appellant informed the respondent about this illegal practice, in response to which the respondent admitted that all this had happened due to mistake. Later on the appellant received a notice from the respondent dated 8.12.2004 calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 9,029, which became due on the dishonour of the cheque. Another notice was also received from the respondent on 7.1.2005. This time the respondent called upon the appellant to pay Rs. 18,085 failing which they threatened to issue proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Recovery agent was also sent to intimidate and harass the appellant. The appellant prayed for directions to respondent to return all post -dated cheques, with compensation and cost of litigation.