Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None appears for the respondent.
3. 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.
4. The case of the of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had incurred loan from the OP for the chasis of a bus and body building of the same bus bearing No.OR-01J-099. It is alleged inter-alia that the chasis while was coming from Kolkata site Chichra checkpostmMednaFpur,West Bengal the chasis was seized but by the intervention of the superior authority it was released. The complainant alleged that he has already deposited margin money of Rs.49,048/- for the chasis and accordingly availed the loan for chasis. He further submitted that he has deposited Rs.17,000/- towards body building of the said vehicle. It is alleged that the loan for body building was not disbursed inspite of repeated request by the complainant. So, finding deficiency in service, the case was filed.
5. The OP filed written version stating that they have financed for the chasis and it is for the party to arrange finance for the body building. So, they admitted to have extended loan for the chasis but not for the body building. Therefore, it is averred that there is no cause of action to file the case and the allegation is false. They have no deficiency in service on their part.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
“The Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards non finance of body building loan in due time,Rs.15,000/- towards other harassment etc. and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this case.
All the above orders are to be carried out within one month the date of order failing which 6 % interest per annum shall be charged over all the ordered amount from the date of order till realization.
Close the case accordingly on part merit of the complainant. “
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not following the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the policy of the OP No.1 is to grant loan for the chasis but not for the body building. He drew attention of this Commission to the agreement. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact that the OP No.1 has not given any sanction order for the body building under the agreement already executed. Learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the agreement while impugned order is passed. Therefore impugned order should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased a chasis by incurring loan from the OP. it is not in dispute that the loan for the body building was not sanctioned by the OP-Bank in favour of the complainant. The question arises whether loan can be extended for the body building bereft of the loan already granted for the chasis. The agreement coupled with the Annexures shows that loan has been sanctioned for the chasis but not for the body building. Not a scrap of paper is filed by the complainant to prove that the loan was extended for body building also.
10. In view of the above, learned District Forum is to found to have not applied judicial mind to the agreement between the parties. Therefore, this Commission do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
