West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/35/2017

Sudarshan Chakravorty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd H.O at Mumbai - Opp.Party(s)

Saswati Bhattacharya

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/35/2017
 
1. Sudarshan Chakravorty
14/3, Chatterjeepara (E), P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, Barrackpore, P.S. Titagarg, Kolkata-700122.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd H.O at Mumbai
Branch office 7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016, P.S. Park Street.
2. Sanjeev Dey, Chief SPLN Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Branch office 7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016, P.S. Park Street.
3. Formerly Suman Basu, Assistant Manager, Presently Gopal Karmakar Assistant Manager ARD Resolution Department, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Branch office 7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016, P.S. Park Street.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pulak Kumar Singha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Saswati Bhattacharya, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order-2.

Date-31/01/2017.

Complainant is present through Ld. Lawyer.

                      The case is taken up for admission hearing.

                                                   Heard the Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant. Considered.

                                       Seen the petition of complaint along with the petition under section 13 (3B) of CP Act.

We find that the instant dispute relates to borrowing of loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs from the OPs and the dispute also relates to salaried account being maintained by the OP Bank.

                                       The relation between the Complainant and the OPs appears to be that of Debtor and Creditor. The dispute involved in this case does not appear to be a Consumer disputes. No Agreement of loan is also produced before us in between the parties from the side of Complainant.

                                       The Complainant also does not appear to be a Consumer as defined under section 2 (1) d) of CP Act.

                                       It appears that the Complainant did not buy any goods for a consideration or hired any services for a consideration from the OP. The Complainant appears to be a borrower and the OPs appear to be Creditor.

                                       We are afraid the case as it is framed is not maintainable in the domain of CP Act.

                                       The case as such is not admitted.

                                       Hence

                                                                                       Ordered

                           That the instant case be and the same is dismissed as being not maintainable under CP Act.

The petition under section 13 (3B) of CP Act is also consequently dismissed.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pulak Kumar Singha]
MEMBER

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.