JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—This is a simple complaint made by consumer alleging deficiency in the service of the contractor of his flat. Admittedly, the complainant had booked a flat with the opposite party, who is the proprietor of M/s. Anjali Enterprises. The flat was booked in "Safallya Apartment" at Nagpur. Further, admitted fact is that the value of the flat is Rs. 1,95,000/- and that the complainant was placed in possession of the said flat on 19-05-1991. It is the case of the complainant that apart from charging him Rs. 18,000/- extra amount towards escalation of price, the opposite party received Rs. 1,40,000/- from the complainant in excess of the agreed price. The complainant alleged that he paid the price of the flat, together with escalated price amounting to Rs. 2,06,000/- already. The grievance of the complainant is that he applied for a housing loan from the Life Insurance Corporation, which was sanctioned for Rs. 1,40,000/- and the said payment was also paid to the opposite party on 24-03-1992. The fact of receipt of this additional amount by the opposite party is not in dispute. It is further alleged that the opposite party was to refund to the complainant the excess amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the L.I.C. loan by instalments. Accordingly, the opposite party had issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 71,000/- respectively on 03-04-1992 and 06-04-1992, but both these cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. Advice note from the Bank is dated 08th April 92 and 9th April 1992, which are at documents Nos. 8 9. Learning about dishonouring of the cheques, the complainant got upset and was returning from Nagpur to Wardha on a scooter and, in that mental tension, involved in an accident on road and got internal head-injury. The complainant attributes the accident due to mental tension, which he received on account of bouncing of cheques and, therefore, has claimed compensation from the 'opposite party', in addition to the refund of his Rs. 1,21,000/-. The opposite party by filing written version admitted the facts of receipt of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of L.I.C. loan, but denied the liability to pay compensation for the injury suffered by the complainant in the accident. It is also submitted by the opposite party that he has not received the excess amount towards the consideration of the flat, as it was a different transaction. 1,40,000/- out of L.I.C. loan, but denied the liability to pay compensation for the injury suffered by the complainant in the accident. It is also submitted by the opposite party that he has not received the excess amount towards the consideration of the flat, as it was a different transaction. The receipt of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the loan amount has been admitted by the opposite party. The only explanation offered by the opposite party is that it is a different transaction and it has nothing to do with the original transaction of the flat. It is further submitted by the opposite party that earlier transaction was completed on 19-05-1991, the moment the complainant was placed in possession. We are not impressed by these arguments, since the opposite party had admitted the receipt of Rs. 1,40,000/- the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant by L.I.C. This admission is further compounded by the fact that two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 70,000/-, dated 03-04-1992 and 06-04-1992 respectively were dishonoured by the Bank. Thus, we find that the opposite party quietly accepted the additional amount of loan meant for the purchase of the flat by the complainant and was dishonest in his repayment to the complainant. The fact that the said two cheques were dishonoured for lack of funds speaks for volumes. It is, therefore, clearly established that the opposite party collected Rs. 1,40,000/- towards extra amount over and above the price of the flat. It is very natural for the complainant to have upset on account of bouncing of the cheques. However, the accident, which the complainant suffered, cannot be linked with the mental tension suffered by the complainant on account of bouncing of the cheques. The opposite party tried to wriggle out of the situation by taking plea that the complainant suffered a partial loss of memory and, therefore, his relatives are taking advantage of this situation. In our view, the submission of the opposite party is not convincing. In paragraph 7 of the written version, the opposite party candidly admitted to have received Rs. 1,40,000/- from the complainant. From the discussion made above, we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations that the opposite party has received the excess amount than the agreed price of the flat, which is a serious deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party. 1,40,000/- from the complainant. From the discussion made above, we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations that the opposite party has received the excess amount than the agreed price of the flat, which is a serious deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party. The act of bouncing of two cheques is a flagrant incident and negligence in the service of the opposite party. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to receive back the excess amount as claimed by the complainant. Similarly, the complainant also is requires to be compensated for the loss suffered by him due to the collection of excess amount by the opposite party. However, we are not inclined to grant any compensation to the complainant on account of accident suffered by him. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 1,21,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 23rd March 1992, till the full payment is made. The opposite party shall also pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment. The complainant be also paid Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of this complaint. The aforesaid payment be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate action against the O.P. under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint allowed. *****