This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 27.09.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar in CC No 5 of 2019. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent Ranjit Deb registered a Consumer Complaint to the effect that he obtained a PMEGP loan from Bank of Baroda, Bhulki Branch to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakh. The loan was sanctioned by the authority concerned after full satisfaction on inquiry and sent Rs. 10,000/- to the bank account of the Complainant on 29.06.2016. Subsequently, within 29.11.2016 the O.P received all the loan amount through the said recovery bank account. The further case of the Complainant is that on 16.06.2011 he filed a petition before the Bank concerned for releasing the rest amount sanctioned loan including the Bank security deposit and disburse the same. And for that purpose, he produced the bill invoice of the quotation of Rs. 87,699.50/- dated 20.01.2018 for purchasing some electrical goods for the purpose of his self-employment but the quotation amount was not paid to him by the Bank from the said loan account. The further case of the Complainant is that the security money of Rs. 22,222/- which has been deposited as security deposit as per the direction of the Bank the same amount was not returned back to him. Due to such unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank he registered the instant Consumer complaint for getting compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the Bank Authority. The instant Consumer Complaint was registered and the summon was sent to the O.P Bank who in spite of receiving the notice could not turn up to contest the Consumer Complaint and for that reason the case was heard Ex- parte. Ld. Forum after hearing the case of the Complainant has delivered the impugned order by which the O.P Bank was directed to take necessary steps so that the Complainant would get total full benefit of the sanctioned money by them and also to give the benefit of the subsidiary amount to the Complainant as per terms of Government Rules and Regulation and also the O.P Bank was asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the Bank has received the summon of the case on 29.01.2019 where it was mentioned the next date fixed on 28.01.2019 then on 29.01.2019 the Branch Manager went to the office of Ld. Forum where it was told that the next date to be fixed very soon and a fresh summon would be delivered at the office of the Bank and the Bank was absolute in dark about the next date of the case as no fresh summon was delivered to the Bank from the end of Ld. Forum and for that reason, they could not contest the case where the Bank had no fault at their own and for that reason the instant order should be set aside and the Bank should be given an opportunity to contest the case by filing the W.V. The appeal was registered in due time and it was admitted on its merit and notice was sent to the respondent. The respondent has received the notice of appeal through Post and Postal Track Consignment Report shows that the Complainant/Respondent has received the notice. The Respondent/Complainant never came to this Commission to contest the appeal since 2020. So, repeated opportunities were provided to the Respondent/Complainant to contest the appeal but the Respondent/Appellant was reluctant to contest the appeal and for that reason the appeal is heard Ex-parte. The appellant has conducted the hearing through Ld. Advocate Mr. P. Joarder.

Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that the Complainant Ranjit Deb has obtained a PMGEP loan from Bank of Baroda and some amount of the loan was disbursed through the recovery loan account in the name of Complainant/Respondent. Subsequently, some portion of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 2 Lakh was disbursed in favour of the Complainant but while the Complainant was asked to disbursed the rest amount of the sanctioned loan by the furnishing the invoice and voucher of electrical items he has purchased for the purpose of his business of self-employment. The Bank Authority did not disburse the same causing serious hardship to the Respondent/Complainant and for that reason he registered the instant Consumer Complaint. While, on the other hand the Bank contended the notice of the Consumer Case has delivered in the office of the appellant Bank on 29.01.2019 while the date was settled in the notice on 28.01.2019 that is before receiving the date fixed was already over and for that reason the Branch Manager contacted with the office of Ld. Forum to know the next date of the case but he was not given the next date and for that reason the Bank got no opportunity to contest the Consumer Complaint. The contention of the Bank also has not been disputed from the end of the Respondent/Complainant as Respondent/Complainant has not contested the appeal. The AD card of CC Case No 5 of 2019 shows that the notice of the Consumer Complaint was delivered in the office of the Bank of Baroda, Bhulki Branch on 29.01.2019 whereas the date of the case was fixes on 28.01.2019. There is sufficient ground to belief that the O.P Bank could not get the sufficient opportunity to contest the case and for that reason the case was heard Ex-parte for which a Nationalized Bank has suffered. The Consumer Protection Act no doubt was enunciated to protect the weaker sections of the society who has every chance to be defrauded by the big merchants and corporators for not providing sufficient services to the service takers and on the other hand the juridical science never takes any approach to settle a matter without giving sufficient opportunity to be heard to a person against whom any order is passed. So, in order to, protect the true spirit of the Consumer Protection Act the Bench considers its necessity to give sufficient opportunity to the appellant Bank to contest the case in an appropriate manner and the Ld. Forum can deliver an appropriate verdict over the Consumer dispute registered before the Ld. Forum. So, in our view, the appeal should be allowed and the Final Order under appeal should be set aside so that the appellant Bank can get an opportunity of being heard of a proper manner before delivery of final verdict. Thus, the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on merit without any cost. The Final Order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar delivered on 27.09.2019 in CC No 5 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The Ld. Forum is hereby asked to reopen the case and accept the W.V. If, the appellant furnishes before the Ld. Forum within 45 days from the date of this order and then hear the case afresh in presence of both sides as per provisions of law and deliver a final verdict on the merit of the case.

The appellant is asked to furnish the W.V positively before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar in CC No 5 of 2019 within 45 days from this day, failing which the Final Order of Ld. Forum dated 27.09.2019 shall be revived.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar for doing the needful.