← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17799/2015dismissed

Madan Kant Prasad v. The Central Bank Of India And ORS

2023-03-20Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17799 of 2015 ====================================================== Madan Kant Prasad Son of Shri Raghubir Prasad, resident of VillageKamalpur, P.O. Pandaul, P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Central Bank Of India through the Chief Manager, Director Central Office, Mumbai.

2.

The General Manager Central Bank of India Central Office Mumbai. 3.

The General Manager (Human Resources Development Central Office) Mumbai.

4.

The Zonal Manager Central Bank of Muzaffarpur Zone, Bihar. 5.

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India at Pandaul, P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/Bank:

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate :

Miss Minu Kumari, Advocate :

Miss Dilkash Khan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 20-03-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- " (i) To Quash the order dated 07.08.2015 in appeal no. 13 of 2007 passed by the State consumer Disputes Redressal commission Bihar, Patna.

(ii) To pay the amount of 20,000/-as mental and physical harassment as well as loss in business and 500 litigation cost deficiency of service by the Respondent no. 5 (The Branch Manager Central Bank of India Pandaul) regarding Sanctioned non-payment of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17799 of 2015(2) dt.20-03-2023 2/2 sanctioned loan amount under the scheme of P.M.R.Y. of Rs. 80,000/- in the year of 1999 dated 30.03.1999 of which only paid Rs. 23,750/- and the rest installment loan amount is unpaid.

(iii) To pay the compound interest on delayed payment within 30 days from passing of the order dated 08.12.2006 by District Consumer Grievances Madhubani. Forum,"

Admittedly, the remedy of the petitioner does not lie before this Court but before the appropriate forum/ Commission, as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly the present writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U