O R D E R    S H E E T

DATE OF ORDER

 ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR ON OFFICE NOTING

04.05.2017

              Shri S. R. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

             The complainant/petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna in C.C.No.179/2016 whereby an application for passing the stay order against the persons who made attempts to recover the loan amount from the complainant, has been rejected.

             Counsel for petitioner submits that his complaint is pending before the Forum, even then agent/seizures of the opposite party are harassing the complainant and making psychological pressure on complainant to make payments.  This illegal act is being done by the agents/seizures of the opposite party finance company, therefore they deserve to be restrained.

              On perusal of the application filed by the complainant before the District Forum and also from the impugned order it is apparent that the petitioner/complainant remained negligent and careless in repaying the loan obtained by him from the opposite party.  Alleging deficiency in service

                                       -2-

on the part of the opposite party petitioner has filed complaint before the District Forum.  The allegation about causing harassment by some persons who according to complainant are agents and seizing persons of the opposite party seems to be vague.  No specific names or designation of such persons have been given.  It is also apparent from the impugned order that the opposite party has already filed reply, affidavit and documents in the Forum and there is no likelihood of delay in disposal of the complaint.  In these circumstances, if petitioner felt aggrieved by the conduct of some unknown person who have not been named by him, he could have approached to Police and other administrative authorities.  But  in the fact and circumstances of the case no blanket stay order can be passed against unidentified persons.

                   In view of the above, we find no illegality or jurisdictional error on the part of the District Forum.  Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.  

(Justice Rakesh Saksena)   (Subhash Jain)  (S. D. Agarwal)

              President                      Member            Member