Orissa

Rayagada

CC/62/2019

Smt Anusuya Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri K.venkata Srinivas Rao - Opp.Party(s)

Sri VRM Patnaik

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 17.07.2019

      Date of Final Hearing: 03.05.2023

          Date of  Pronouncement: 07.06.2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 62 / 2019

 

Smt.  Anusuya  Nayak,

W/O: B.Kailash Chandra Nayak,

Nilachakra  Nagar,   Po:Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada

(Through Sri  Ram  Mohan  Patnaik,Advocate)                     …Complainant

 

Versus

Sri Konathala  Venkata Srinivas Rao,

S/O: Sri K.Raju, Railway   New Colony,

Visakhapatnaik (A.P.)

(None  for  the   O.Ps).

 

                                                                                    …Opposite Parties

 

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDER  U/S-39  R/W U/S-64  OF THE C.P.ACT, 2019.

 

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non refund  of  deposited amount  Rs.2,00,000/- towards  promissory  note  which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The O.P.  not appeared though notices has been duly served  resultant made exparte.

The learned counsel for the complainant .is present during the course  of hearing.

On perusal of the record  it is revealed  that the complainant   had entered  into   promissory Note  Dated.   23^th.  April, 2016 and Dated.5th. day  of June,2017  with the O.P.(Copies of the  promissory notes are in the file which are marked as Annexure-I  & II).    On Dt. 23.4.2016 Rs. 1 Lakhs & on Dt.5.6.2017 Rs. 1 lakhs  the complainant had paid  total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the O.P.as hand loan  for development of his business     which  duly   acknowledged  in presence of the  attesting witnesses  with a promise    to  repay the same     to  the complainant as per demand.

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  Commission  observed  that the matters relating to the money  transaction  between the parties     will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 2019.  This commission  has lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to  the hand loan /Promissary  Note  transaction.  Hence the case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

The grievance of the complainant to get  return the amount as per   Promissory Note    can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this commission. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.

The period  spent before the Consumer Commission  could be excluded, while calculating  the period of limitation, as  contemplated Under  Section -14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

 

 

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON 07.06.2023