STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

(Appeal No.310 of 2016)

 Sri Suresh Pandey,

S/O- Deo Parshan Pandey,

Vill- Chandulal,

P.S.-  Bitha District- Patna                                                             Appellant.         

VERSUS

M.D. Bihar State Co-operative

Land Development  Bank

Samitee, Buddh Marg, Patna

and others                                                                                       Respondents.            

BEFORE,

                                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.Sinha, President,

                                Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM(Rtd), Member and

                                 Hon’ble Smt. Renu Sinha, member (F)

ORDER

28.04.2017

Upendra Jha Member.

                           This appeal is against the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the District Forum, Patna in complaint case no. 106 of 2003 by which the  complaint is dismissed.

 2.                   Brief facts of this case is that  the appellant after taking a loan from the  opposite party respondent Bank for Rs. 2,00,000/- purchased cows for diary business. But the purchased  cows were not insured neither by the  appellant nor by the respondent Bank. On 22.02.2000 cows  fell ill and died. So, the complainant appellant could not  file claim and could not receive insurance benefit. He filed  a complainant for before the District Forum Patna with a prayer  for direction  to the opposite party Bank for payment of Rs. 1,00500/- as compensation economic loss and litigation cost. The opposite party- respondent contested the case. The district Forum dismissed the complaint against which this appeal is preferred.  

3.                    The appellant has filed  Written  notes of arguments. The opposite party respondent has filed counter affidavit  and several decision of this commission  as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Heard.  

4.        The counsel for the appellant submits that the District Forum has no power to recall its own order dated 18.11.2006 passed in complaint case no. 106 of 2003 by which the District Forum held that the complaint  is maintainable before forum  but by the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 the forum has observed that  complaint is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Viswa Lakshmi  Sashi Dharan  and others Vs. Branch Manager Syndicate Bank  reported in III (1997) CPJ 8(SC) has held  that mere filing  of suit for recovery  of amount in not absolute bar  on the commission to enquire. The District Forum order is not sustainable  in the eye of law and it is fit to be set aside. The appeal  has merit. It is fit to be allowed.

6.        The counsel for the respondent  Bank in counter affidavit has stated that it is wrong to say that the appellant has deposited Rs. 5000/- for insurance of the purchased cows to  the opposite party Bank. As the complainant is a share holder  of the  Bank and  Bank has been registered under Bihar  and Orissa co-operative Act. Hence, the  complainant  is not a ‘Consumer’ under section 2(1) (d) )(ii) of the consumer protection Act 1986 and it is not a consumer dispute. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the  case.  The appellant never informed the death of cows in the year 2000 and he never produced  any post Mortem report to the Bank. He filed a complaint after a certificate proceeding was initiated to realize  the  loan  amount. He  had to file  objection Under section 9 of the public  Demand Recovery Act before the District Certificate officer.  His  intention  is to grab the loan amount misleading  the District Forum.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal be dismissed.

7.         Having considered the submission of parties and on perusal of the District  Forum order as also the materials available  on record  it appears that the District Forum has considered  the matter in right perspective. After taking loan from the  Respondent  Bank, the  appellant purchased cows for diary business.  This fact is admitted. It was the  primary duty of the appellant  to get all cows  insured by any insurance company when the  respondent Bank failed to insurance the cows. We do not find any  agreement copy on the record to show  that who was responsible  to insure the cows  whether the appellant or the respondent  Bank. As the complainant  has been a member of the respondent co-operative Bank, he cannot be a ‘Consumer’ of the respondent  Bank. When the loan was not repaid by the appellant and a certificate proceeding was initiated  against  the complainant  to realize  the loan dues, to save  himself , the  complainant filed a complaint before District Forum which was dismissed. We do not find any illegality in District Forum order and there is no reason to take a different view in this matter. Hence  the district forum order is affirmed  and the  appeal is dismissed. 

S.K. Sinha                              Renu Sinha                                         Upendra Jha

President                                Member(F)                                         Member(M)

Mukund