Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.              This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.            The case     of complainant, in brief is that OP No.2 being associate of OP No.1 gave assurance to the complainant to give finance for purchase of a second hand Tata Indica V2 car as the complainant was in need of purchasing the car on being financed by the financial institution. It is alleged inter-alia that OP No.2 advised the complainant to purchase  the Indica V2 car  from one Dr.Santanu Kumr Sahoo of Koniha,NTPC,Talcher  who wanted to sell same for Rs.2,40,000/-. The complainant also deposited liquid cash of Rs.9,750/- with OP No.2 towards 1^st installment and prepare a demand draft dtd.27.11.2002 in favour of OP No.1 so that rest of the amount would be financed by OP No.1. The OP No.2 took the draft from the complainant to bring the clearance from the OP No.1. Later on the complainant found that office of the OP No.2 has been shifted and then enquired from the Canara Bank where the demand draft has been submitted for encashment. The complainant allegedly approached the OP No.1 for sanction of loan. The OP No.1 assured the complainant to wait for some time and clearance had not come by them.   But he did not get loan and he requested OP No.1 & OPNo.2 but they turned a deaf ear to his word. As such the complainant having found deficiency in service, filed the complaint case.

4.                The OP No.2 is set-exparte.

5.               OP No.1 filed written version stating that the complainant has not made any request for being financed from OP No.1 and he has never financed for Rs.90,000/-  to the complainant. Further he submitted that no such demand draft has been received from the complainant as there is no application to finance the complainant. However, he totally denied regarding finance and receiving any draft from the complainant. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

6.                 After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “Hence, the complaint petition filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The OP No.1 is directed to return the amount of Rs.90,000/- with 12 % interest per annum from the date of encashment i.e. 7.12.02 till the date of realization. The OP No.2 is directed to return the amount of Rs.9,750/- paid by the petitioner towards processing charges and 1^st installment with 12 % interest p.a from the date of receipt i.e. 27.11.02 till realization. Further the OP No.1 & 2 are direction to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. “

7.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing impugned order which is not sustainable in law.  According to him the OP No.1-Appellant has financed for the purchase of 2^nd hand vehicle from Nirupama Sahoo and the Demand draft does not show to have been received from the complainant. Learned District Forum ought to have considered such facts. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside so far direction is given to OP No.1.

8.            Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order. 

9.          Since, OPNo.2 has been set-exparte, the facts disclosed by the complainant in the complaint with affidavit is deemed to have been admitted because OP No.2 has not appeared to deny same. Moreover, the complainant, in order to prove his case has filed the documents. The money receipt dtd.27.11.2002 shows that the OP No.2 has received the demand draft No.206223 dtd.27.11.2002 from the complainant and also the 1^st installment of cash of Rs.9750/-from the complainant. The counter foil of the receipt for the demand draft also shows that the complainant has prepared the demand draft in favour of Tata Finance Ltd., OP No.2 on 27.11.2002 and same draft has been received by OPNo.2 who stated to have  to handed over same to OP No.1. The demand draft in question also shows that it has been prepared in favour of OP No.1. But the OP No.1 does not deny about receipt of such demand draft. Also OP No.1 never admitted that such demand draft belongs to Nirupama Sahoo. Therefore, the statement of complainant corroborated by documents amply proved that the OP No.2 being agent of OP No.1 has paid the amount of Rs.90,000/- in shape of demand draft to the OP No.1 for financing.

10.         The OP No.1 has not filed any document to disprove the fact of the complainant.

11.       In view of above discussion, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned District Forum and same is affirmed.

              Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost.

           Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

              DFR be sent back forthwith.