DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 104 of 2022
Date of Filing: 29.12.2022
Date of Order: 12.06.2023
1.Smt Bishnupriya Sahu,
W/o-Jayaram Sahu
At – Masterpada
PO- Phulbani Town
District- Kandhamal ………………….. Complainant
Versus.
Smt. Prativa Mohanty,
W/O Pravakar Mohanty,
Address
Pitabas Mohanty,
Axis Bank, Dasapalla,
District-Nayagarh. …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Mr.G.K.Padhy Advocate & Associates
For O.P. : Mr.A.Sahoo,Advocate
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President
Complainant Bishnupriya Sahu has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party for not refunding her money and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party for refunding a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- and to pay cost of litigation Rs. 5000/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that Opposite Party Prativa Mohanty had received a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- from the complainant towards hand loan with the condition to refund the amount within a period of two months. Even after two months, the money was not returned back and she assured the complainant to refund the amount after selling her landed property in her native village. When the complainant was waiting to get back her money, the Opposite Party absconded in the night of 01.12.2022 at 2 a.m. from the rented house of Muna Patnaik. Therefore, she has filed this case for direction to the Opposite Party to ascertain the whereabouts of the Opposite Party and to direct for recovery of her amount of Rs. 90, 000/- along with to pay cost of litigation Rs. 5000/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
- After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through her advocate and filed written statement. In her written statement, the Opposite Party stated that the present case being a dispute of different nature is not a consumer dispute as defined in Consumer Protection Act-2019. As the complainant is not regarding the deficiency of service and the petitioner not being a consumer, is not maintainable. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
- The first and foremost question relating to this case whether the case is maintainable before the Commission or not?
A bare reading of the complaint petition reveals that this is a matter relating a hand loan given by the complainant to the Opposite Party in good faith with the assurance of refund of the amount after two months and subsequently after lapse of two months to repay the money after selling the landed properties in her native village. No consideration has been paid by the complainant for hiring the services or for purchase of any goods for which the petitioner cannot be termed as “Consumer” as per the definition of Consumer as defined in CP Act-2019.
- As petitioner is not a consumer, the case is not maintainable before this Commission and hence the Order.
O R D E R
The complaint petition is accordingly disposed of as not maintainable. The complainant is at liberty to avail the appropriate forum for Redressal of her grievances. Parties to bear their own cost.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commission today on this 12th day of June 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
