NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3292/2009

SHYAM SUNDER BEHERA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

26 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 11 Aug 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3292/2009
(Against the Order dated 03/06/2009 in Appeal No. 53/2009 of the State Commission Orissa)
1. SHYAM SUNDER BEHERAS/o Late Bulei Behera, Village/ P.O. Khanditar, P.S. Dharmasala Dist.-JAJPUR(ORISSA) ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. ICICI BANK LTD. ORS. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 26 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Perused the letter dated 25.1.2010 sent by the petitioner. In this revision challenge by the complainant is to the order dated 3.6.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack dismissing appeal against the order dated 5.1.2008 of a District Forum whereby the complaint was dismissed on merit as also on ground of the Forum not having territorial jurisdiction to decide it/ Petitioner alleged that he had purchased tractor and trailer by availing loan from opposite parties nos.1 and 2 –Bank. He had repaid the loan in 17 instalments to the Bank. He applied for further loan for purchase of - 2- another tractor and he deposited amount of Rs.33,000/- with the Bank. Petitioner further alleged that in his absence the opposite parties nos. 1,2 and 3 came to his house on 24.8.2005 and took away the old tractor with trailer as also the original receipts evidencing payment of loan amount. Direction was thus sought to be made to the opposite parties to return the tractor and trailer, in alternative, the cost of tractor and trailer alongwith compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and refund of margin money of Rs.33,000/- etc. Complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing written version. Opposite parties alleged that the petitioner had created some false receipts of payment by forging signature of opposite party no.2 and the entire loan amount was not paid by the petitioner. Order of the District Forum would show that the complainant had filed Criminal Case No.222/07 against the opposite parties in the court of J.M.F.C. Chandikhole which has been converted to G.R. No. 918/07 U/Ss 420/409/406/379 IPC. Order would further show that ICICI Bank had filed Criminal Case No.487 of 2008 U/Ss 463/464/468/469 and 471 IPC against the complainant in the court of SDIM, Cuttack. In view of pendency of both these criminal cases and the stand taken by opposite parties regarding forgery of some of the receipts evidencing payment of loan amount, the District Forum was of the opinion that petitioner had not made out any case on merit. Forum also - 3- took the view that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction in the matter for the reasons recorded in the order itself. In view of the pendency of two criminal cases as also the stand regarding forgery of cert ain receipt s of payment of loan by the petitioner, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER