ORDER

Per : Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member

Dated-08.05.2024

1. The Appellant/complainant has filed the appeal against the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Nawada in complaint case no.- 11/2017 whereby and where under the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The case of the Appellant/complainant in brief is that the complainant Late Shyamlal Nonia had taken a tractor on loan  vide Tractor Loan Account no.- 7285 AU00000202 and the total price of the tractor was Rs. 3,65,000/- and Rs. 6,14,542/- was repaid  as principal and interest. Further case is that the complainant has entered into an agreement with the O.P.  and it was  agreed to pay Rs. 1,80,000/- by 16.03.2015 and on 14.02.2015 a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was paid and  Rs. 1,00,000/- remained due and  the complainant went to the O.P. with one  Lakh rupees  in cash for loan repayment which  was  refused and on 10.02.2017 the O.P took possession of the Tractor and thus the source of income of the complainant  stopped and the complainant started suffering Rs. 1000/- per day  as loss and thus the complainant has suffered Rs. 60,000/- as loss up till now. A legal notice was also sent. Prayer was made to make a direction for release of the tractor and @ Rs. 1000/- per day be adjusted from the due Rs. 1,00,000/-  from 10.02.2017.
3. The O.P. Bank appeared  and filed its written statement in which it was  admitted that the complainant’s father taken loan for tractor  on 14.08.2006.Further case is that no compromise was taken place between the complainant and the O.P. and it is false to say that the Bank   refused to  accept the cash.  Further case  is that the  complainant has not suffered any   loss and  it is the Bank who suffered loss and  the  legal notice was replied  on 29.03.2017.Further case is that the complainant after death of  his  father  did not pay   regularly and even not paid the  dues amount before 14.08.2015 hence  the tractor was seized by  the Bank on 10.02.2017 and  the complainant never turned up before the Bank or its  higher   authority  for compromise. The complainant has not paid more than due amount. Prayer is made to dismiss the complaint.
4. After hearing the parties the Learned District Consumer Forum, has passed the impugned order.
5. Being aggrieved and  dissatisfied with the impugned order Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal mainly in the grounds that the impugned order  is based  on mere conjectures and  surmises  and  the Learned  District Forum has not properly considered that  there is deficiency in service  on the part  of the   respondent- Bank and it was also not considered that after the death of his  father, the Appellant deposited the loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- till 16.03.2015.Further  ground is that  the Respondent-Bank  arbitrarily  and   illegally seized the tractor of the Appellant which was the only means of earnings  of  his livelihood and the  impugned order has  been  passed on flimsy  grounds and is fit to be set aside.
6.  At the time of  hearing it were mainly submitted  that the  impugned order suffers from many  infirmities as mentioned in the memo of appeal and is  fit to be set aside.
7. None appeared for hearing on behalf of the Respondent.
8. Also perused the records including the written notes of argument filed by the appellant.
9. At page 15 of the paper book we find a Xerox copy of the letter dated 09.03.2015 of the Respondent-Bank written to the Appellant in which   it has been reminded to deposit Rs. 1,80,000/- till 16.03.2015 failing which the compromise proposal shall be   cancelled but the amount  was not deposited till 16.03.2015 and on 10.02.2017 the Respondent- Bank took  possession of the tractor although  the Appellant claim that only Rs. 1,00,000/-  remained to be deposited. Whatever  it may be  the due loan amount was not cleared by  the  Appellant till 16.03.2015 as per the compromise proposal. The Learned District Forum in the impugned order has rightly held that the complainant is solely responsible for the cancellation of the compromise proposal and thus not entitled to any relief. We are also of the same view. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
10.    A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                        (Gita Verma)

     Jud. Member                                                                                                 Jud. Member

Anita