State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Orissa Khadi & Village Industries ... vs Natabar Sahoo, on 6 January, 2022
EEFORE THE STATE CONSUMEiR DISPUiE REDRESSAL
COMMESSION, ORISSA, CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. /2008.
CLRF.Dhenkanal
(Arising out of C.D Case No-192/2006},
in the matter ol:
Section-15 of the Consumer
An application under
Protection Act.1986;
And
n the matter of:
veUcag
Orissa Khadi &Induatries Board,
A/Po/Ps-Kharabela Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
Dist.- Khurda, represented through its Secretary.
Appellant.
(Opp.party no-! in District Forum)
-VERSUS-
Natabar Sahoo, agee about 59 years,
S/0-BidyadharSahoo, Viil/Po- Jamunakot,
P/S-Bhuban, Dist- Dhenkanal.
Respondent.
(Complainant in the District Forum) Branch Mangger, Dhenkanal Gramya Bank, Marthapur Bränch, AUPo- Marthapur, P/S- Bhuban, Dist- Dhenkalal.
Proforina Respondent.
ekniOpp-party No-2 in the District Forum)
n A NA ABudAAGAt&t
the
The humble netition of SI. No. Date of of Order Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any) taken on Order F.A.No.788/2008 21 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears n behalf of the Respondent.
2. This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Rrotectioon Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the| Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred tc with reference to their respective statu before the District Forum.
3. The case of thelcomplainant in briefis that the compiainant fn order to earn his livelihood has started a ftone crusher unit. He allegedly applied for. inqurring loan from 0.P.1 who sanctioned lean f Rs.6,50,000/ The complainant installed the crusher Unit but could not get the electricity line because of super cyclone in 1999. The complainant a!so alleged that electricity department caimed as to action (if any), Office note taken on Order Date of ORDER wITH SIGNATURE SI. No. of Order Order complainant for Rs.3.50 lakhs from the to which the providing power supply to As the was unable pay.
complainant
was not ablelto pay, as per advice
complainant
complainant was
of technical expert the
to run the crusher unit with the help
preferred
which the complainant
of diesel engine for
of the loan and
asked the O.P No.2.for sarction O.P.1 to allow the
0.P.No.2 sent thè request|to ahead with installation of complainant to go to run the unit but the 0.P.1 did diesel engine sat idle. So not help for which the complainant of service on the part of showing deficiency O.Ps., the complaint was filed.
been set
4. The O.P No.1/appelant has
filed written version exparte but the O.P No.2 As per of the complainant.
admitting the case
|is stated that after
version of 0.P No.2, it
from the complainant,
receipt of application application forwarded the same the 0.P No.2
0.P.2 informed O.P No.1. At the same time 1 to OGP p .F SI. No. Date of of Order Order ORDER wITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any), taken on Order O.P.1 that work has not þeen completed up to the satisfaction.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Dist. Forum passed the following order;
Xxx XXx XXX
The complaint petition is allowed oon
contest against the OP No.2 and exparte
against the O.P No.2.
The O.P No.1 is liable for the deficiency of servicc ad unfair trade practice. So the OP No.1 is to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only the ccmplainant within three to months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own cost and ¢ompensation.
Xxx XxX XXX
6. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that they have engaged the lawyer but the lawyer concerned did not work for SI. No. Date of Office note as to action (if any). of Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order Order which they have been set exparte. According to him the complainant has not started business at andallhas already misappropriated the ampunt sanctioned and disbursed to him. Since he has not completed the work the question of further sanction of loan does not arise. This aspect would be placed with material if an opportunity would be given to this O.P No.1. So he precisely submitted to remand the matter.
7. Considered the sybmissions of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the D.F.R and impugned order.
8. It is the duty of| th complainant to prove deficiency of service on the part of O.P.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant in order to start a Crusher Unit applied for ioan to the OP. No.1 who sanctioned-the toanof Rs:6,50,000/- and sent OGP SI. No. Date of of Order Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any), taken on Order the same to the O.P No|2 who disbursed the said amount to the complainant.
10. The complainant alleged that the Electricity Department demanded a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs for the elettricity connection but the complainant requested for a diesel engine for extending power and.for that he has informed to the O.P No.i. It is also clear from the submissions of both the parties that 0.P No.1 did not considet the sane as the complainant is a defau|ter. Unless the O.P No.1 is allowed to file written version as an opportunity and participate in the hearing, the real truth will not come out because the 0.P .
No.1 has already started recovery of the loan amount already paid Therefore this Commission is of the view that the matter should be remanded by allowing the appeal for denovo hearing.
Office note as to action (if any), SI. No. Date of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order of Order Order
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Commission hereby set aside the impugned order which |was passed exparte against the O.P No.1 and further remand the matter to the learned Dist. Forum with a direction to the learned |Dist. Forum to allow O.P.1 to file written version and allow both parties to adduce eviden¢e if any and dispose of the same within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No cost.
The D.F.R be sent back to the concerned Dist. Forum.
Free copy of this order be supplied to the Confonet parties or may be down loaded from or Website of this Commission be treated as free copy issued to them.
(Dr. D.P.Choudhury, President *** ' OGF