SRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                        The brief fact of the complainant’s case is that being in urgent need of money the complainant pledged gold ornaments to get Rs.8,500/- from the OP on dtd.15.10.2008 claiming that the OP was an authorized money lender. Thereafter, the complainant offered Rs.17,000/- towards principal and interest but the OP demanded Rs.90,500/-. The complainant also issued a legal notice on dtd.11.02.19 U/S-7 of the Odisha Money Lending Act but the OP did not care for it. The complainant contended that the OP resorted to unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency of service. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose on dtd.11.02.19, when notice was sent to the OP for release of the gold ornaments. Hence, the prayer for relief.

 2.                       On the otherhand, the Op entered appearance and filed written version denying the Petitioner-complainant’s averment. Vide Para-5 of the written version the OP specifically and categorically denied that he is an authorized money lender. The OP further stated that he was never a money lender nor he has got license doing money lending business nor ever he gave Rs.8,500/- to the complainant on dtd.15.10.2008 likewise the OP denied that the complainant offered Rs.17,000/- for release of his pledged gold ornaments, the OP denied that he demanded Rs.90,500/- from the complainant. The OP further stated that due to personal enmity between himself and the complainant such a false case have been filed without any basis to harass him. According to the OP, the complainant is not a consumer nor any of the provision of the C.P.Act is attracted in the present case for which the present case may please be dismissed in limine.

3.                On above pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:-

                  i) whether the complainant-Petitioner is a consumer or not ?

                 ii)  whether the complainant is entitled to any relief or not ?  

4.                Heard extensively from both the sides at length in the matter. During course of argument the Learned Counsel for the OP stated that the OP is not a Registered Money Lender under Money Lending Act nor the OP ever advanced any loan to the complainant by keeping pledged gold ornaments. Further, according to the Learned counsel for the OP, burden lies on the complainant to prove that the OP is a registered money lender. According to the Learned counsel for the OP the complainant utterly failed to satisfy the Forum that the OP is a money lender. According to the OP the complainant also filed this case against the OP before the District Legal Service Authority, Kendrapara bearing Case No.108/19 with similar allegation against the OP. The OP ,after receiving the notice made his appearance before the District Legal Service Authority and when the case was posted to dtd.01.06.19 for conciliation and the OP was present before the District legal Service Authority, the complainant did not prefer to appear before the District Legal Service Authority for which the case was dropped. Last but not least the allegation of the complainant that the OP demanded Rs.90,500/- against a loan of Rs.8,500/- is not at all believable and not practical in nature, so only to harass the OP due to previous animosity such a false case have been foisted by the complainant against the OP.  

5.                 Considering the above submission and complete absence of documentary proof to establish that the OP was a money lender, we are under constraint to accept the contention of the complainant. Hence, it is ordered:-

                    The complaint petition is disposed of on contest and in view of our above observation, the complainant’s petition having no merit stands dismissed.

                      Pronounced in the open Court, this the 26th day of  February,2020.