BIJOY KR SARANGI Vs. MOHIMOHAN TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for short the 'State Commission') in C.D. Appeal No. 406 of 2005, Bijoy Kumar Sarangi (who was arrayed as opposite party No.5 in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner - herein against the order dated 23.02.2005 passed by the District Forum Khurda in complaint case No. 382 of 2003. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant respondent No.1 herein ex -parte against the opposite parties with a direction to the opposite parties to refund the balance deposited amount of Rs. 3,30,000/ - (Rupees three lacs thirty thousand only) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order with the stipulation that in case of default, the complainant shall be at liberty to recover the said amount along with interest @ 18% per annum in accordance with law. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the District Forum by observing as under:

(2.) WE have heard Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents as they remained unrepresented on record at the time of hearing of the petition although, there was representation on previous dates of hearing.

(3.) SINCE the Revision Petition pertain to the year 2008 and was filed against the concurrent findings of the fora below, we consider it expedient to hear and dispose of the revision petition. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record, the findings being least in consonance with the settled legal position. In this connection, his submission is that both the fora below have gravely erred in relying and acting upon an undertaking dated 16.5.2001 given by the petitioner herein in the police station in connection with FIR lodged by the respondent -complainant against the FIR dated 21.03.2001 lodged by the respondent No.1 -complainant against the petitioner and other directors of the company alleging cheating on their part. The said undertaking is couched in the following language: