IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /72/2014 .

 Date of Filing:            11.06.2014.                                                                          Date of Final Order:28.04 .2015.

Complainant: Afroja Sarkar, W/O Oziuzzaman Sarkar, Vill.+P.O.+P.S.  Raninagar, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Suparigola Branch, P.O.+P.S. Raninagar,

                             Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali- Presiding Member.

Brief fact of the complaint case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, is that the complainant Afroja Sarkar availed a sanctioned loan for stationary goods business under the scheme of BSKP of Block Development Office, Raninagar-II for her livelihood with the amount of Rs.5, 00,000/- as loan and Rs.1, 00,000/- as subsidy on the part of the Government. So, when the complainant asked the OP/Bank to disburse the loan amount, then the Bank agreed to do that as because, the subsidized amount was already deposited in the Bank by the concerned department. Thereafter, the complainant asked for the same several times, but the OP Bank repeatedly giving assurance and told to wait. One day the OP said that the deposited necessary papers lost. So, need those papers. The complainant again deposited the required papers with the help of Block Development Officer. Then the OP Bank instead of disbursing loan sent a letter to Block Development Officer informing that the said sanctioned subsidized amount will be return back to the department. Thereafter, badly behaved with the complainant and did not pay any heed to the matter. According to the complainant which is a clear example of deficiency in service. So, she came to the Forum for proper redress.

The OP Bank appeared through the Ld. Advocate by filing Vokalatnama , but did not file any written version till date. On the other hand, the complainant is absent without steps last two consecutive dates and no show cause has been filed till date.

In this circumstance, we are in a view that the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case with an unknown reason. May be the complainant mutually compromised with the OP Bank or gave up the hope of getting loan from the OP Bank. But the Forum is a place for speedy disposal process, so the case is taken up for disposal.

Hence,

                               Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 72/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed due to non-prosecution.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.