The record is put up today for hearing. Advocate for the complainant is absent, no steps filed. Advocate for the O.P is present & files hazira. Heard from Advocate for the O.P.

                                         On perusal of the case record, it is seen that the complainant is a BPL category. He has availed agricultural loan amounting to Rs.49,987/- from the O.P- Bank under MNAIS scheme. In the particular year i.e. 2013, due to cyclone, Kharif crops in the locality was affected up to 99%. But, the complainant has not benefited under the scheme due to the deficiency in service by the O.P- Bank. As his request for the purpose was refused, he served legal notice on the O.P- Bank to do the needful in the matter, but as his request was turned down, he was compelled to file the case.

                                         On the other hand, O.P- Bank stated in its version that their bank had sanctioned KCC loan of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant on 18.06.2011 with a condition that the loanee shall renew the KCC loan account annually for a period of 3 or 5 years. The complainant, as on 01.06.2013, withdrawn Rs.51,900/- keeping a debit balance of Rs.49,987/- leaving a balance of Rs.13/- only in his account. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

                                         Perused the case record. It is seen that the present complainant has earlier filed C.D. Case No.129 of 2014 on the self-same facts and prayer claiming compensation against the present O.P- Bank, which was dismissed on merit by this Commission on 19.08.2015. The complainant claimed that in the earlier C.D. Case, he has not filed the resolution of MNAIS, 2013, for which the case was dismissed and on obtaining the said documents, he has filed the present case again. In the above premises, when this Commission has already disposed of the matter once agitated by the complainant in an earlier complaint and at present the complainant has not claimed that the earlier order passed by this Commission in the earlier complainant was a clerical omission, it is held just and proper that the complainant is estopped to agitate the self-same matter on the self-same cause of action once again. That apart, this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter on the self-same facts and cause of action once again with a view to review its own order. At best, the complainant is at liberty to knock the door of the Appellate Forum, if so thinks, rather to approach before this Commission.

                                         In the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit.  

                                         Inform both the parties accordingly.