ORDER

Per:Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated-  31.01.2024

1.                              This appeal has been filed under section -15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum (Commission), Gopalganj  (in short the District Commission) in complaint case no-14 of 2012, whereby and where under the consumer complaint filed by the complainant (Appellant) was dismissed as the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the  Opposite-parties.

2.        The facts of the complaint case in a nutshell are that the complainant got loan sanctioned of Rs. 3, 23,000/- for purchase of a Tractor along with Trolley from the Central Bank of India, Branch Khajuria, Gopalganj (Respondent/O.P. No-1). Thereafter the complainant got Tractor from M/S Om Agriculture and Auto Agency, Gopalganj (Respondent/O.P. No-2) but he was not supplied trolley. However, the O.P. No-2 (Respondent no-2) already obtained the signatures of the complainant on plane papers for that purpose. It has been further stated that the complainant made contact with the O.Ps. several times for supply of  trolley. Whenever no heed paid on part of the O.P. a legal notice was served upon the O.P. but there was no response of the said notice. Hence the  complainant/Appellant filed a consumer complaint case no- 14 of 2012 before the Learned  District Commission claiming therein a lost of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the period of 2005 to 2011  due to deficiency in  service on part of the opposite-parties. It is the further  case of the  complainant that in the mean time he  received a notice with respect to payment of loan amount with interest from the O.P./ Respondent no-1. Thereafter the complainant approached to O.P./Respondent no-1 requesting that he was ready to pay loan amount but the amount given for trolley would be deducted from the loan amount as no trolley was provided to him. It is the further case of the complainant that despite objection he deposited Rs. 75,000/- on 25.05.2005 and Rs. 76,000/- during the period of 07.04.2005 to 23.03.2007, besides subsidy amount of 25% under the scheme of the Government. However, no benefit of subsidy was provided by the O.P. no-1 rather used to issue notice for payment of excess amount adding more interest thereon which was not legal and proper. It is further stated that the despite payment as mentioned above as also deprived the complainant from subsidy amount the O.P. issued a demand notice with respect to loan of Rs. 5,93,032/- which was not proper and legal. Therefore the complainant was entitled for compensation as claimed for in petition on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite-parties.

3.             On notice issued by the Learned District Commission the Opposite-party appeared and contested the complaint case by filing written statement on its behalf. It has been stated in written statement that the complainant was not a consumer rather he was loanee and he filed complaint case only in order to misappropriate of loan amount on false ground. Hence, the complaint case was not maintainable rather it was liable to be dismissed. It had been further stated that complainant had been already supplied tractor along with trolley from M/S Om Agriculture and Auto Agency, Gopalganj. Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation from the O.P. it had been further stated that Annexure-7 of complaint petition was saying amount of the  complainant where as loan of  tractor was AGTL-5 which was correct entry regarding deposit of amount. It had been also stated that the exemption of 25% of loan amount as a subsidy had been   consumed and rest loan amount had been calculated as per the Bank rules. Hence, no question was arisen to increased the interest deliberately by the Bank. There was no question of deficiency in service on part of the opposite-parties, as Tractor and trolley had been supplied to the complainant for which a satisfaction letter had already been submitted by the complainant to the O.P. in respect of receiving trolley from the Agency. It was further averred that the complainant was a defaulter of Bank and was not willing to pay the loan amount. Hence, he filed a complaint case only in order to grab the loan amount. Therefore, the complaint petition be dismissed with cost.

4.                After hearing both the parties  as also gone through the material available on record as well as considering the oral and documentary evidence the Learned  District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant observing therein that the complainant had failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite-parties.

5.              Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned District Commission the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal on the ground that, the Learned District Commission passed the order without considering of  facts and  circumstances  as well as evidence produced by  the complainant and  it has been  prayed that the order passed by the Learned District Commission fit to be set aside and allow this appeal.

6.             After perusal of the memo of appeal as also impugned order and material available therein as well as order sheet of this appeal it appears that since 12.01.2017 neither Appellant nor any representative on behalf of him has been appearing in this appeal. On the other hand the Respondents have also been not doing proper “pairvi” in the appeal. After waiting for a long time the notices have sent twice to the Appellant as evident from the perusal of postal receipt available on the record. First registered notice was sent on 04.07.2022 and second notice was sent on 11.01.2023 by the office of this Sate Commission under registered cover. The conduct of the Appellant as well as opposite-parties show that they had not been interested in this appeal since long. However, as material available before us we find no merit in this appeal because the Appellant/ complainant had failed to produce reliable evidences before the Learned District Commission to prove deficiency in service on part of the opposite-parties.

7.               As such we find no merit in this appeal. The order passed by the Learned District Commission required no any interference.                      

8.        As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant stands dismissed.

9.              A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019 and also to be sent to the learned District Commission by way of proper mode of service. Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

10.              Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.