STATE CONSU M ER D IS P UTES R E DR ESSALCOM M lSS ! O N,OD IS HA,CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2015 (From an order dated L5.04.20L5 passed by the District Forum, Puri in C.C. Nos. 60 of 2OL2 and 336 of 20L2\

Punjab National Bank, Mandarbasta Branch, At - Mandarbasta, Po - Gadasanput, Ps - Kanas, Dist - Puri -752060, Odisha, Represented through its Branch Manager ... Appellant Vrs.

Krushna Chandra Behera, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Bauribandhu Behera, At - Gopinathpur, Po - Brajamohanpur, Ps - Khurda Sadar, Dist - Khurda (Odisha)

... Respondent For the appellant : M/s P.M.Pattajoshi and associates For the respondent : M/s R.K.Pattnaik & Associates PRESENT:

THE HON,BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER AND MISS S.t.PATTNAIK, MEMBER DATED THE 21't OCTOBER, 2022 ORDER DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J. PRESIDENT Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to this CIl appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

2.

This appeal is assailed against c.c.No. 60 of zoL2 and 336 of 20L2 which were disposed of by this common order dated L5.4.2015 by the learned District Commission, puri.

FACTS

3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant in order to have earning livelihood has purchased a tractor and trolley being financed by the op - Bank for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.lt is further alleged inter olia that after sanction of the loan, the tractor and trolley were purchased and registered before the RTo, Bhubaneswar bearing Registration No. oR-02- BF-9620 and OR-02-BF-962L respectively. Further, it is stated that the tractor and trolley were insured under the oriental lnsurance Company Ltd. covering the period from 8.7.2010 to 7.7.2010. lt is alleged inter olio that due to drought and flood the instalments were not paid on time to the OP- Bank. ln the meantime, the OP demanded a sum of Rs. 5,26,018/- and threatened to seize the tractor. challenging the demand as deficiency in service on the part of the op complainant filed cC No. 60 of 20L2 against the oP. However, during pendency of that case the oP without any notice to the complainant has repossessed the vehicle. Challenging the said seizure of the vehicle as illegal, CC No. 336 20L2 was filed.

4.

Per contra OP filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer. !t is also admitted by the OP that the complainant has obtained loan from the OP - Bank as alleged in the complaint but the nature of dispute filed before the District Forum can only be adjudicated before the Civil Court, not by the Consumer Forum. lt is also pleaded that both the consumer cases arise out of same cause of action. So, second complaint i.e. CC No. 335 of 20LZ is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is averred that the complalnant has deposited Rs.20,0001- on 28.4.20L2 in the OP - Bank while the previous case No. 60 of 20L2 was pending before the District Forum. Thereafter, the complainant has not paid the instalments. So the oP issued notice to pay the arrear outstanding. Since the arrear was not paid the oP as per the agreement seized the tractor and trolley and as such they have no deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.

DECISION OF ERSTWHITE DISTRICT FORUM

5.

After hearing both the complaint cases, the learned District Forum passed the following order. The relevant portion is as follows:-

" xxx xxx xxx The complaint is allowed on contest in the liqht of the observations mode in the preceding poragraphs. The OP is directed to refund the total omount deposited by the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. ln the peculiar facts ond circumstonces no compensotion ond cost is aworded."

suBMrssroNs

6.

Learned counse! for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not dismissing present complaint cases which arises out of same cause of action of

0)