Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose Complaint No.99/2004 has been partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane by its judgement and award passed on 28^th September 2004.  By the said judgement complaint was partly allowed and Opponent Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has been directed to issue and handover N.O.C. to the Complainant for obtaining duplicate registration certificate from R.T.O.  The Opponent has also been directed to pay to the Complainant `1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  Not satisfied with the reliefs granted, the original Complainant has filed this appeal.

(2)                This appeal was lying unattended since 2004.  Appellant had not taken circulation who had filed the appeal.  As per policy of this Commission this appeal was placed before us on 9^th August, 2011 for passing first order.  As per policy of this Commission the notice was also published on the internet.  Copy of the same was displayed on the notice board of this Commission.  On finding that both the parties were absent we adjourned the said appeal for today and directed office to issue notice to both the parties.  Accordingly on 09.09.2011 the office had issued notice to both the parties.  But today both the parties are absent.  Hence, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

(3)                Consumer complaint was filed by the Complainant claiming compensation of `1,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization for the loss of business due to non-issuance of N.O.C. which was required from the Bank for obtaining duplicate registration certificate and cancellation of national permit.  Complainant further prayed for `20,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and direction against Opponent Bank to waive penalty and compound interest charged from October, 2003 till disposal of the complaint.

(4)                The admitted facts between the parties were that Complainant had purchased the vehicle which was financed by Opponent Bank.  Original Registration certificate given to the Complainant was lost and Complainant requested Opponent Bank to issue him no objection certificate for obtaining duplicate registration certificate since vehicle was pledged with the Opponent Bank who had provided finance for the purchase of the vehicle.  Opponent Bank did not issue no objection certificate and the District Forum was of the view that registration certificate was most important document and since original registration certificate was lost, the Complainant had rightly claimed N.O.C. from the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The District Forum therefore held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Bank in not issuing N.O.C. for obtaining duplicate registration certificate from the R.T.O. and also imposed costs of `1,000/- on the Opponent.  Not satisfied with the inadequate relief granted by the District Forum, the Complainant has filed this appeal for claiming award of `1,00,000/- which he had claimed for loss of business.

(5)                Since, both the parties are absent, we perused the impugned order and we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and it is sustainable in law.  For deficient service, the District Forum had rightly allowed the complaint and directed Respondent Bank to give Complainant N.O.C. so that Complainant could procure duplicate registration certificate of the vehicle in question from the R.T.O.  The Complainant/Appellant wanted award of `1,00,000/- for the loss of business though for such loss of business District Forum is not the right Forum.  If at all it is the case of Complainant that he suffered loss in business because of deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent he should have filed Civil Suit and not consumer complaint.  In Consumer Complaint deficiency in service can be enquired into and appropriate reliefs can be granted and same has been noted by the District Forum by allowing the complaint but grievance of Complainant was that he has not been awarded compensation of `1,00,000as per his prayer.  In view of the Apex Court ruling for loss of business no relief can be granted to the Complainant in consumer complaint.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Appeal is dismissed.

       (ii)              No order as to costs.

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 7^th October, 2011.