Case record taken up today for hearing. Parties are absent on call. Complainant remained   absent on the   previous date of posting for hearing. Case has been lingering since 22.02.2019 due to non cooperation of the parties. However, in view of Sec. 38(3)(c) 2019 we proceed to decide the complaint on merit.

        Perused the material available on record, we have our thoughtful consideration on the pleading of the complainant.

        It is the contention of the complainant that  he was sanctioned with loan amount of Rs.80,000/- from the Opp.Party No.1/ Bank as agriculture loan for the season of 2015-16  and out of the sanctioned amount a sum of Rs.78,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant after deduction of Rs.2000/- only towards agriculture insurance. The   complainant being a loanee is an absolute beneficiary of agriculture insurance. Due to natural calamity the agricultural product grown in 2015-16 got damaged as such the O.P/Bank should have take proper steps to collect the insurance benefit from the agriculture insurance company and the same  should  have adjusted  against the said loan but failed to do so and  OP/Bank has  been pressuring the complainant to repay the loan which  is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the OP/Bank  caused financial burden and mental agony to the complainant need to be  compensated. Hence, the complainant prayed for an order directing the OP/Bank to adjust the loan amount from the benefit received from the agriculture insurance company and further pray for a direction to the Bank for supply of “No Dues Certificate” to the complainant in respect to the alleged loan with compensation of Rs.50,000/- including litigation cost for the  mental harassment suffered due to deficiency in service of the OP Bank.

        On being notice, the O.P Bank appeared through Learned Counsel Shri S.K.Agrawal but failed to file their written version on the allegation made against them though sufficient opportunity are availed. However, the OP Bank has given further opportunities to take part in the hearing of the case but remained absent.

        Section 38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider, irrespective of whether the service provider adduced evidence or not, the decision of District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation. 

Here in this case, the complaint averments are not supported by any affidavit of the complainant. No evidence is adduced by the complainant to substantiate the allegation made in his complaint. So also the documents filed along with the complaint are photo copies and there are not authenticated or attested to be true copy of the original, as such it cannot be accepted as evidence.

There is no iota of evidence available on record to hold any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP/Bank authority.

        Basing on above facts and circumstances, we found no merit in this complaint. Hence, this complaint is dismissed against the Ops. However, there is no order as to costs.

        Pending application if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

        Office  to send the copy of order to the parties and upload the same in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties. Order accordingly.

Member                                President