ORDER NO. 6 DT. 8.7.09

Heard Ms. Amina Khatun, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant as also Mr. Barun Prasad,  Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.  We have perused the materials on record and we have also perused the grounds taken in the Appeal.  Considering the material on record we find that the complaint was filed by the complainant by reason of his grievances against the action of the OPs in encashing the post-dated cheques lying with the OPs even after the entire loan was re-paid.   It appears that the complainant produced documents namely, Statement of Accounts for the relevant period, re-payment schedule, money receipt, bank statement for the relevant period and sanction letter of the cluster loan.  on such evidence the Forum below came to a finding accepting the complainant's case that in spite of full and final re-payment of loan on 8.2.08 the OPs had withdrawn five more installments from the period from 1.5.08 to 28.8.08 through the unreturned post-dated cheques of the complainant.  On behalf of the Appellant nothing has been produced even before us even disputing the said contention of the complainant regarding recovery of the amounts by the Appellant in spite of re-payment of the entire loan.  The relevant contention of the complainant have not been even denied and no ground has been taken which requires a consideration.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant pressed Ground No. 1 that the dispute is not covered under Consumer Protection Act.  We find that the OPs were rendering service and the action complained of is in violation of the agreement and, therefore, we find that the dispute is cognizable by Consumer Forum.  We have perused the other grounds taken and we do not find any of them which requires any consideration, nor any disclosure of material has been made justifying interference with the impugned order and finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgement of the Forum below the Appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is hereby confirmed.  No order as to cost.