ORDER :

1. Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is unemployed and complainant obtained loan from opposite party No. 1 to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) for installation of retreating tyres plant and preparing cattle feed and animal feed unit. It is pleaded that opposite parties in collusion with each other played fraud with the complainant and did not disburse loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) to complainant factually and only loan amount was paid in papers. It is pleaded that opposite parties opened false forged bank account and also formed false firms and cheated complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of rupees ten lac as compensation for deficiency in service. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of rupees ten lac for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1 and complainant is estopped to file present consumer complaint on account of his own act, conduct and deed. It is pleaded that complainant has leveled false allegations against Sh. Rajpal Singh then Manager and Sh. Rajpal Singh then Manager has not been impleaded as co-party in the present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that consumer complaint is barred by limitation and complainant has suppressed the material facts from learned District Forum. It is pleaded that complainant has no locus standi to file the present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay installment of loan amount and loan amount of Rs.3301733/ -(Thirty three lac one thousand seven hundred thirty three) is due from complainant to opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 has filed recovery of loan application before Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.

3. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.2 and complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that complainant did not avail any service of opposite party No.2 and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint due to his own act, conduct and deed. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.

4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted allegation mentioned in consumer complaint. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

5. Following points arise for determination in present consumer complaint:

1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide allegation of forgery of loan documents under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to adjudicate settlement of accounts dispute inter se parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986?

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

6. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.C1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is unemployed and deponent obtained loan from opposite party No. 1 to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) and also mortgaged his property. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not pay loan amount to deponent factually and loan amount was shown only in papers. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties committed forgery of loan documents with deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that FIR No. 171/2014 dated 13.08.2014 under section 420, 34