IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.<br /> <br /> Dated this 3rd day of November 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 901/2010<br /> <br /> Present: 1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member.<br /> 3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.<br /> <br /> Complainant: Sri R.A.Manjunatha, S/o Sri R.V.Anantharamaih, Age: 49 years, R/at No.138, 6th Cross, Telecom Layout, II Stage, Bogadi, Mysore-570026.<br /> <br /> (By Sri P.T.P., Advocate)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Opponents: Manager, Bajajz Finserve Lending, <br /> (Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,), No.328, Jayalakshmi Arcade, Narayanashastri Road, Opp. Raghavendra Swamy Temple, Above Airtel Customer Care, Mysore-570024.<br /> (O.P. - EXPARTE )<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponent for directing him to report the closure of his loan account to CIBIL and also to pay the compensation of Rs.90,000/- towards monitory loss and mental agony etc., undergone by him on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and also, to pay the cost of the complaint etc.,<br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> That the complainant is working as Junior Telecom Officer in BSNL at Mysore and he is drawing the gross salary of Rs.45,258/- per month. For admitting his daughter to B.E. course, on 14.07.2010 he had applied to the Syndicate Bank, V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysore for the sanction of loan of Rs.2,80,000/-. Subsequently, on 30.07.2010 he shocked to know that the said application was rejected by the Syndicate Bank on the ground that as per the report of CIBIL, the loan availed by him from the other institutions was over due. In fact, the complainant had availed the loan of Rs.10,990/- from the opponent on 10.09.2006 and the same was fully cleared by 11.05.2007 itself and the opponent has issued the clearance certificate. Apart from the said loan, the complainant has also availed the other two loans, one car loan and another house loan. The said loans are running loans and the complainant is paying the installments of the said loans regularly by way of salary deduction and he has not made even a single default in respect of payment of the installments of the said loans and the same is clear from his salary slip. Thus, the complainant is very prompt in repaying the running loans and cleared the earlier loan which was availed from the opponent institution. In spite of the same, the opponent has failed to send the clearance report of the loan to the CIBIL. As per the guidelines of the RBI, it was the duty of the opponent to inform the CIBIL immediately after the clearance of the loan. But, the opponent has failed to do so even after the clearance of the loan made by the complainant and as a result of which, his loan application was rejected by the Syndicate Bank. Thus, the said act of the opponent not only amounts to unfair trade practice, but also deficiency in service. As a result of which, the complainant has suffered not only mental agony, but also lost his financial credibleness in the society. Therefore, the complainant has also addressed a letter to the opponent calling upon his explanation in the matter. The opponent has received the said letter and kept quit without giving any reply. Thus, the act of the opponent is nothing but practicing of unfair trade practice and therefore, the opponent is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponent claiming the compensation and other reliefs. Mainly on these averments, the complainant has filed this complaint and urged for allowing the same with costs.<br /> <br /> 3) In spite of service of notice, the opponent remained absent. Hence, he has been placed exparte and then posted the case for evidence of the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents and closed his side. Hence, thereafter, heard the arguments of the complainant’s counsel and then posted the case for orders. <br /> <br /> 4) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?<br /> 2) What Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In the negative. <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6) Point No.1:- In order to prove his case, as already stated above, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents. Of course, in his affidavit, the complainant has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of his case made out in the complaint. But, to support his oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence on record. As per the averments of the complaint, it is the specific case of the complainant that his loan application was rejected by the Syndicate Bank solely due to the opponent’s non-reporting of the clearance of loan of Rs.10,990/- borrowed by him from the opponent. But, on perusal of the rejection letter produced by the complainant clearly discloses that his loan application was rejected by the Syndicate Bank, V.V.Mohalla Branch, Mysore not only on the ground that the loans availed by him from other institutions are running over due, but, also on other three grounds clearly, (1) Net salary that is (home take salary) is less than 50% of the total emoluments, (2) Not full-filled the cut back norms and (3) Already availed loans from other banks as disclosed from the salary slip. Even as per the CIBIL report produced by the complainant clearly discloses that the personal loan of Rs.1,90,000/- borrowed by him is over due to the extent of Rs.3,907/- as on the report dated 30.07.2010. The said report further discloses that the complainant has raised four other loans and there is balance in all most all the said loans. Thus, there is no supporting documentary evidence on record to say that the loan application of the complainant was rejected by the Syndicate Bank solely due to the opponent’s non-reporting of closure of loan availed by him from the opponent. In the absence of any such supporting documentary evidence on record, it is very unsafe to rely upon the self serving oral evidence of the complainant alone to reach the conclusion that the rejection of the loan application of the complainant by the Syndicate Bank is solely due to the opponent’s non-reporting of closure of loan borrowed by him from the opponent. On the other hand, the material placed on record by the complainant himself clearly discloses that he has borrowed various loans and there is balance in almost all the loans and one loan is also over due Hence, under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the negative. <br /> <br /> 8) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following, <br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 3rd day of November 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> <br /> <br /> S.R.L<br /> <br />