BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ORISSA : CUTTACK,

Complaint Case No,

/2008.

In the matter of

An application U/s, 17 of the

Can suner protection Act, 1996

AN

D

In the matter of i

Ms. Ores nterprise s Pvt, Lta,,

represented by its Managing Director,

Mr, George Bakthan, aged about 39, yeare,

s/o, v, G, Livingeton, Hou se No, A/31,

IIIrd Phaee, kel in ga vihar, chhend,

Rourkela-15, P, S, R,N, Palli,

Dist-sundargarh,

Compl ainant,

Versus,

1) The Branch Manager,

Utkal Gramya Bank,

Basanti Colgpy Bran ch,

ROurke-769 012,

Dist-sundargar,

2) The Chairman,

Utkal Gramya Bank, Bal an gir,

At/P,/P, S, /Diet-Balangir.

.. Opp, Perties.

Office note as to action (if arny)

taken on Ordeer

Date of

SI N

of O

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

Order

C.C.07/2008

to) 29-07-2022

Learned

Counsel

for

the

Ppposite Parties is present.

In spite of ^{notice dated 28-04-}

2022 ^{of this Commission, neither the}

appellant ^{nor his counsel is present to-}

day ^{on repeated calls.}

This complaint is of the year

2008, ^{hence we take up the matter on}

merit.

The

Complainant

has

approached ^{this Commission for the |}

second time. The Complainant is a

consumer of Utkal Gramya Bank,!

which

was

previously

named as

Bolangir Anchalik Gramya Bank and

has filed the present complaint with a

prayer to quash Annexure-10, which|

was issued by the Utkal Gramya Bank

in

pursuance

to

OTS

scheme as

directed

by

this

Commission

in

C.D.Case

No.152/2007.

The mai

prayer of the Complainant is to quash

the letter vide Annexure-10 to the

OGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020

SI

of Order

No.

Date of

Office ^{note as} to action (if any),

taken on Order

Order

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

complaint petition. 'The Opposite Party

No.l

and 2 have filed the writtch

version stating

at para-10

that

in

pursuance

to

OTS

scheme,

the

Complainant ^had deposited Rs.10.00

lakhs vide cheque No. 839898 dt.01-

11-2007, which has bounced due to

insufficient funds.

Perused the complaint petition.

In view of the above facts, we hold that

the Complainant is not a consumer ank

prayer ^of Complainant to quash the

letter under Annexure-10 is beyond the

jurisdiction ^{of this} Commission, hende

the complaint petition stands dismissed

on merit.

No costs

(H.K.Mohanty)

(Member)

(D.K.1ohgapatr:)

(Member)

ReCo

A

l o 8 . 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document