DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO. 33 OF 2014
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Duryadhan pattanaik
S/O: Late Sankar Mohan Pattanaik
At: Phulbani Sahi, PO/PS: Phulbani
Dist: kandhamal ………………. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Chief Manager
Andhra Bank Zonal Office
Gayatri Centeral plaza, Ground Floor
Zenana Hospital Road,
Tata Benz Square, Berhampur
Dist: Ganjam.
2. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank
Ananda bazaar, Phulbani
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: kandhamal.
3. The Director Jessop & Co. Ltd.
Road Roller Division, Gate No. 12.
8 Mangal pandey Road, Kolkata.
For the Complainant: Sri M.R Mohanty and his associates.
For the Opp. Parties: Sri V.V Ramadas and his associates.
Date of Order: 30-06-2015
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that he approached the Opposite Party No.2, the Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Phulbani for financial assistance to purchase a Road roller. Accordingly Rs.8, 13,000/- was sanctioned in favor of the Complainant for the purpose. The O. P bank sent the delivery order to the O.P No.3 through due process to supply the Road roller to the Complainant. The Complainant went to Calcutta 10 to 12 times to meet the O.P No.3 but he stated that he has not received the intimation from the O.P bank regarding the supply of Road roller to the Complainant .So, after ten months the Complainant sent a notice to Opposite Party No.2 with request to cancel the contract as he was spending a huge
-2-
amount for his journey and staying at Kolkata .Thereafter the Complainant filed a complaint case vide IC.C No. 21/2013 against Opposite Party No.3 before the learned S.D.J.M, Phulbani .
The Complainant deposited installments on good faith before Opposite Party No. 2 and requested him to supply the statement of account after deducting the interest for above mentioned 10 months but no action was taken by the O. P Bank . As the Complainant was harassed by all the Opposite parties he has filed this complaint for a direction to Opposite Party No.2 to supply the statement of account of his loan after deducting the interest amount of 10 months and claimed Rs. 5, 00000/- as compensation from the Opposite Parties for loss and injury caused due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties.
The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 as per their joint version is that the Opposite Party No.2 sent a bank draft worth of Rs. 8,13,000/- to the O.P No.3 with a direction to deliver the Road roller in favor of the Complainant with a copy to the Complainant for his information . The Opposite party No.2 issued reminders to Opposite Party No.3 on 08-10-2012,01-11-2012,19-11-2012,10-12-2012,20-01-2013,06-02-2013 and 19-03-2013 to deliver the Road roller to the Complainant . On 22-04-2013 an advocate notice was also issued and thereafter the matter was materialized between both the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3.The dispute of causing delay of supply the Road roller is between the Complainant and O.P No.3, for which the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are no way responsible. As per the Bank agreement the Complainant is liable to pay interest and the O.P No.1 & 2 are no power to waive out the interest. The Complainant is at liberty to collect statement of accounts from the Bank after depositing the required fee. The computer accounts are not under the control of the O.P No.1 & 2 for which the same can not be provided with additions & deductions.
The further case of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is that there is no cause of action to file this case and the case is barred by law of limitation .The Complainant is not a Consumer as per provision of C.P Act and the complaint is not maintainable and the Forum has no jurisdiction to redress the issue of beach of contract between the Company and customers. They prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
The Opposite Party No.3 was set expartee as he failed to appear in spite of getting notice.
We have heard the Complainant and learned counsels appearing for the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. We have gone through the Complaint petition, the version of O.P No.1 & 2 and the copy of documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. Neither the Complainant nor the Opposite
-3-
Parties have filed any affidavits in support of their case. The O.P no.3 was set- exparte in this case as not interested to contest. On perusal of the documents filed by
the Complainant it is seen that all the letters were given by O.P No- 3 to O.P No.2. In these letters the O.P No.3 explained his difficulties to deliver the Road roller to the Complainant in time. So deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 & 2 is not clearly established .Apart from this it is evident that the Complainant purchased the Road roller on loan through O.P No.1 & 2 being a contractor . So, the purpose is commercial .Since the Road roller was purchased in relation to business in our view, the Complainant do not fall within the definition of consumer as defined U/S-2(1)(d) (i) of the C.P Act.
Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed on contest against O.P 1 & 2 and exparte against O.P No.3.However the Complainant is at liberty to file case against O.P No.3 in the Civil Court for his loss and damage. No order as to costs.
The C.C is disposed -of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
