Parties must adhere to the finality of Lok Adalat awards and the Consumer Protection Act enforces consumer rights against negligence by service providers.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order impugned dated 23.8.2016 passed by ld Trial Commission, Chinsurah, Hooghly in connection with CC case no - 213/2013 wherein the ld Trial commission allowed the same against the opposite parties / bank on contest with cost and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order the instant appeal has been brought by the appellants praying for setting aside the order impugned dated 23.8.2016.

2. The brief fact of the case is that State Bank of India, Uttarpara Branch filed one complaint before the Lok Adalat in connection with T.S. no - 104/2008 for recovery of bank loan with interest amounting to Rs.3,10,733. The said Lok Adalat has been pleased to pass an award on 14.2.2009 in favour of SBI with a direction upon the petitioner / complainant to pay Rs.1,99,000 to the concerned bank. The first instalment amounting to Rs.50,000 would be paid by the petitioner within 30.3.2009 and the rest amount would also be paid by May 2009. The complainant paid Rs.50,000 within the stipulated period of time as per above direction. But unfortunately due to financial hardship he failed to pay the rest amount within the stipulated period of time. In the year 2013 the complainant visited the ops / bank and intended to pay the rest amount of Rs.1,49,000 but the ops / bank refused to receive the same. On several occasion the ops / bank demanded the balance amount and finally the ops / bank demanded Rs.5,24,000 and subsequently threatened with dire consequence by saying if the complainant would fail to pay the same, legal consequence would be followed against the complainant. Under such circumstances, the complainant was bound to pay the said sum of Rs.5,24,000 on 7.9.2013 as per demand of ops / bank. It was very astonished that the ops / bank did not issue any proper statement / computer generated copy to the complainant. For getting proper reliefs against the ops / bank, the complainant knocked at the door of the ld Trial commission.

3. The opposite parties / bank contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that the complainant intentionally stopped to make payment of rest amount of Rs.1,49,000. The opposite parties / bank further stated that due to change in the system from Bank Master to CBS, the bank was not in a position to supply the copy of bank statement to the complainant. The bank, on any occasion, never demanded different amount in respect of payment of outstanding loan at the behest of the complainant. No threat or harassment towards the complainant was made by the opposite parties / bank. Accordingly the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

4. In course of hearing the ld Counsel appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the observations of ld DCDRC and pointed out that the ld DCDRC below completely ignored and overlooked the materials and documents on record while passing the impugned order mentioned above. The ld Counsel further argued that in the year 2008 one civil suit was filed by the bank against the complainant for recovery of loan amount. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement of disputes between the parties. On 14.2.2009 a direction was given to the complainant to pay Rs.1,99,000 to the bank. The first instalment amounting to Rs.50,000 would be paid within 30.3.2009 and the rest amount of Rs.1,49,000 would b