Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.        Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nut shell is that the complainant being an unemployed youth in order to maintain his livelihood availed loan facilities from the O.Ps  for Rs.26,14,766/- to purchase two numbers of Hydra Crane.  Agreement has been executed between the parties to repay the loan with 35 number of months in three slab i.e, Rs.80,000/-, Rs.65,000/- and Rs.53,000/- for 12 months, 12 months and 11 months respectively. It is alleged inter alia that during course of repayment of the installments 3 number of cheques dated 05.8.2013 of Rs.53,000/-, dated 15.4.2013 of Rs.65,000/- and dated 15.11.2012 of Rs.65,000/- were bounced due to unavoidable circumstances. It is also alleged that after bounce of cheque dated 5.8.2013 another cheque dated 30.8.2013 which was also bounced. The amount under said cheque was paid by RTGS. It is alleged that the amount of these three numbers of bounce cheques were paid to the O.Ps vide money receipt dated 16.10.2013, dated 10.11.2013 and 28.12.2012  respectively.  Due to bounce of cheque the O.Ps had filed  complaint cases U/S-138/ 141 of N.I Act before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and thereafter, compromise was held between the parties to settle the outstanding amount of Rs.70,000/- only  which was paid by the complainant on 05.01.2015. After that the NOC was issued by the O.Ps to the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant  that due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complaint case was filed even if the amount under bounce cheques were settled  by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps filed the complaint.

4.        O.Ps filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer and it lacks territorial jurisdiction. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. It is averred that the allegation relating to dishonor of cheques cannot be decided  before the District Forum so as to  decide issue of deficiency in service.

5.        After hearing both parties the learned  District Forum has passed the following order:

“xxx   xxx   xxx

Complaint is partly allowed. The O.Ps finance company is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees one lakh) only to the complainants as compensation along with pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only  as litigation costs. All aforesaid awarded amounts are to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.ps finance company shall be liable  for interest @ 12% per annum on aforesaid ordered amounts till its realization.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  the learned D