Orissa

Rayagada

CC/155/2019

Smt. Rajamahanty Rajeswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Narayana Sunani M.T.S Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sri V.R.M Patnaik

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 30.12.2019

   Date of Final Hearing: 01.03.2023

       Date of  Pronouncement: 01.03.2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 155 / 2019

Smt. RajamahantyRajeswari,

W/O: Sri R.Prasad Rao,

Resident  ofMajji Street, Po/Dist: Rayagada

(Through Sri  Ram  Mohan  Patnaik,Advocate)                     …Complainant

Versus

Sri Narayana Sunani,

M.T.S Head  post office, Rayagada

(None  for  the   O.Ps).

                                                                                    …Opposite Parties

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

          2. Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Member.

ORDER

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.   08^th.  March, 2018 with the O.P.(Copies of the  promissory note is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).    On Dt. 08.3.2018 the complainant had paid  an 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.  Hencethe 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.

 

 (S. K. PANIGRAHI)                                                        (R. K. PANDA)

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON 01.03.2023