G S T MOTORS Vs. R ELANCHEZHIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in C. O. P. No.75/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant.

(2.) The complainant/respondent sought a direction to the opposite party to pay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.60,000 with interest @ 24% from 13.3.2001 with compensation of Rs.10,000 and cost. According to him, even after maturity, the opposite party did not repay the money. In 2000, instead of paying the maturity amount, they dragged on the payment till 13.3.2001 when they took back the fixed deposit certificates and instead promised to pay the amount after three months for which they executed a promissory note and issued 3 post-dated cheques each for Rs.1, 200 towards interest for three months. When the complainant's father was admitted in the hospital for treatment of heart ailment, the opposite party did not oblige the complainant by settling the claim. When the complainant deposited the post-dated cheques, they were dishonoured stating funds had not been arranged.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the complaint contending as follows : The complainant was a private money lender. The opposite party used to borrow from him for his Auto Business Consultancy. The complainant adopted unfair trade practice in the collection of principal and interest. He refused to give vouchers for payment of interest or the refund of the principal amount. The opposite party received a loan of Rs.60,000 on 4.7.1998 and executed two promissory notes for Rs.30,000 each in favour of the complainant. The complainant compelled the opposite party to issue separate cash receipts on 4.7.1998 in a printed form. The opposite party returned the loan amount before the due date, but due to his urgent needs, he received from the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000 on 5.7.1998 with interest @ 24% p. a. As demanded by the complainant, the opposite party executed two promissory notes on 5.7.1999 for Rs.30,000 each in favour of the complainant. He was paying interest regularly and also returned the loan amount of Rs.60,000 before the due date. But the opposite party did not return the promissory notes. The opposite party returned the loan amount of Rs.60,000 with due interest of Rs.3,600 by cash to the complainant on 5.7.2001 but the complainant did not return the promissory notes, receipts and the three cheques issued in favour of R. Mahalakshmi, since they had closed their loan account. The three cheques were issued by the partnership firm, Venus Services by the partner in favour of one R. Mahalakshmi and the three cheques were dishonoured by the drawer. The drawer and the drawee were in noway connected with the complainant. The complaint was not maintainable. The opposite party if at all was only a debtor, only a civil suit would lie.