DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 194/2016    

P R E S E N T                :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.

                                       :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu………………. Member.

Order No.45

Dated.20.09.2024

Today is fixed for order.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1-2 is present.

M.A. case no. 165/2024 is taken up for order. Perused the petition.

O.P No. 1 & 2 by filing the said petition prayed for direction upon the Complainant to supply a set of documents which they relied upon.

Complainant at the time of filing of this case produced certain documents and O.P No. 1 & 2 got the copy of the same.

During pendency of this case, Complainant filed some other documents and copy of the same also served upon the O.P No. 1 & 2.

Complainant already filed affidavit in chief and also submitted answer as per questionnaire. So it is clear before us that Complainant not yet filed any additional document except the aforesaid document.

In view of above we do not find any merit in the aforesaid petition.

Hence, the petition dated 10/06/2024 which registered as M.A. 165/2024 is considered and rejected.

M.A. case 165/2024 is thus disposed of.

M.A. case no. 166/2024 is taken up for order. Perused the petition.

O.P No. 1 & 2 by filing the said petition prayed for direction upon the Complainant to comply the order dated 08/08/2022 passed in M.A. case no. 104/2021. Complainant filed W/O against the said petition.

Perused order dated 08/08/2022. This Commission passed the following order:-

“Heard both sides. The O.P raised objection that the prayer is not maintainable.

But since the prayer is made in terms of observation of Ld. Appellate Forum therefore it is to be allowed. Hence, the M.A. 104/2021 is allowed on contest. O.P / Bank Authority to submit the original forms containing signature of Complainant by 17/10/2022.”

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

:   :  2  : :

C.C. No. 194/2016

On careful perusal of the said order we find that direction has been given to the O.P Bank i.e. O.P No. 1 & 2to produce original forms containing the signature of the Complainant. But O.P No. 1 & 2 till date not yet complied the same. Without complying the same till date they filed the present petition praying for direction against the Complainant. Their such type of attempt is nothing but wastage of valuable time of this Commission and willful disregard to the Order of this Commission till date.

In this context, this Commission also directed the O.P No. 1 & 2 to submit original forms containing the signature the Complainant by 12/02/2024 vide order no. 39 dated 05/01/2024.

Knowing the same O.P No. 1 & 2 did not comply the same till date but filed this petition on 10/06/2024 which clearly indicates that they are trying to drag the case.

In view of above, we find that petition is devoid of merits and same is rejected and same is rejected with cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) which will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission.

M.A. case 166/2024 is thus disposed of.

To 04/12/2024 for further order.

                                       Member                                            President