STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 122 of 2017

Angad Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Rajnandan Singh, Village- Keshopur, PO & PS- Barhara, District- Bhojpur

                                                                                                                                           … Complainant/ Appellant

Versus

1.  Bank of Baroda through the Branch Manager, Bakhorapur Branch, Bhojpur and

2.  Tara Machine & Tech Service Pvt. Ltd. through the Director, Village- Ghitorni, Near NBCC Complex, Mehrauli- Gudgaon Road, New Delhi- 110030

                                                                                                                                        …. Opposite Parties/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Satendra Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Sanehay Srivastava

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 14.08.2023

As per Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member.

O r d e r

1. The appellant/complainant has filed the appeal against the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhojpur, Ara in Complaint case no. 103 of 2015 by which the Ld. Forum has dismissed the complaint as not maintainable holding the complainant not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The respondent no. 1 has appeared but the respondent no. 2 has not appeared for hearing. However, it has filed its written notes of argument.
3. It is mainly submitted on behalf of the appellant/complainant that the appellant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as in the petition of complainant in its opening lines, the appellant has clearly stated that for the purpose of self employment and livelihood he contacted the O.P. no. 1 for purchase of Flyash bricks making machine on loan. Prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and to allow the appeal.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that appeal bears no merit and prayer is made to dismiss the appeal.
5. In its notes of argument the respondent no. 2 has also prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard, perused the records the appellant/complainant in his petition of complainant in its opening lines has stated that for the purpose of self employment and livelihood he contacted the O.P. no. 1 for the purchase of Flyash bricks making machine on loan.
7. Thus we find and hold that the appellant/complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint so filed is maintainable. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
8. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Ld. District Forum, Bhojpur, Ara for consideration in accordance with law with a request to dispose of the complaint at the earliest.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                               (Ram Prawesh Das)                                         (Sanjay Kumar,J)

             Member                                                     Member                                                            President

Md. Fariduzzama