(1.) Complainants in this complaint claims Rs. 25.00 lakhs as damages. There are two complainants. Second complainant is stated to be the nephew of the first complainant and his beneficiary. There are as many as seven opposite parties.
(2.) First complainant on 12.1.1996 had taken a loan of Rs. 10,900/- from Bihar State Co- operative Land Development Bank Ltd. for purchase of diesel engine pump set for agricultural purposes. There is a dispute regarding refund of the loan which was carrying interest. It would appear for non-payment of the loan, recovery certificate was issued by the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. and proceedings under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 were initiated against the first complainant. It would appear that in execution of proceedings first complainant was taken to custody, imprisoned and remained in jail from 8.7.2000 to 24.7.2000. Complaint is that whole action was illegal and because of illegal custody of the first complainant, they suffered daniages. Complainants claim Rs. 24,50,000/- for this wrongful detention and Rs. 50,000/- as cost. It would appear that the complainants had earlier approached Patna High Court in writ jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the proceedings initiated against the first complainant under the Bihar Demand Recovery Act and required the District Magistrate, Bhojpur to proceed in accordance with law without being in any way prejudice of order of the Court. This order of the High Court is dated 2/4.3.1990. As to what happened afterwards paragraph 8 of the complaint which deals with the cause of action for the complaint may be referred to and we quote"-
(3.) We do not think it is a case where complainant can allege any deficiency in service. If there is any grievance he can knock at the doors of the Civil Court. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed. _____________