Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This statutory Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is preferred against the Order dated 01-03-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in CC/554/2014, whereby the complaint case has been dismissed.
The dispute centres around a loan account stood in the name of the Appellants. On one hand, it is claimed by the Appellants that in terms of the onetime settlement offer formulated by the Respondent, they liquidated the loan account by paying the entire settlement sum; on the other, the Respondent alleged that the Appellants failed to adhere to the terms and conditions being laid down under the OTS offer and he still owed a sum of Rs. 41,706/- to the bank.
Notice of the present proceedings was duly served upon the Respondent Bank. However, as it did not turn up to defend its case, the Appeal was heard ex parte.
It appears that the Respondent contested the case before the Ld. District Forum by filing WV together with a Statement of Account in respect of the subject loan account. It is indeed astonishing to note that the Appellants have not annexed the same for the reasons best known to them.
Notwithstanding by furnishing a Statement of Account, the Appellant tried to prove that he liquidated the said loan on 28-02-2014, in absence of copy of the settlement offer being made from the end of the Respondent, we are unable to figure out as to whether or not such payment was made within the specified time.
It is also noted from the impugned order that some transactions were made till 15-01-2015 in respect of the subject loan account. Therefore, without going through the copy of the relevant Statement of Account for the missing period, we do not deem it appropriate to give a clean chit to the Appellant.
It is always desirable that a litigant would approach a Court of Law with clean hands. Acting smart may not always bear the desirable result.
In absence of any plausible explanation behind not annexing crucial documents mentioned hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The Appeal is dismissed as such. No costs.
