DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 13/2/2023
CC/44/2023
Zeenath.U,
D/o Usnar,
Pazhayapadam,
Nemmara, Kayaradi,
Pin – 678 510 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
Balakrishnan,
Star Power,
10/44/1, MadanMithra Building,
VH Road, - Opposite party
Palakkad
(By Adv.K.Gopakumar)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party delayed the refund of Rs.4,07000/- remitted from the PMEGP Loan account of the complainant with Canara Bank, Kayarady Branch for the purpose of purchasing stitching machines. Her further allegation is that the opposite party reduced Rs.50,000/- as GST from the amount, inspite her making a complaint with Nemmara Police Station.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance and filed version. As it was not filed with in the statutory period it was rejected and the case was proceeded ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 & A2 as evidence
Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice for 2 stitching machines purchased by the complainant for Rs.48,000/- Ext.A2 is the Account Statement of the complainant with ESAF Bank, Adiperanda.
4. The complainant has not marked any document to prove the payment of money to the opposite party. Further the remittance to the opposite party from the loan account of the complainant is meant for the supply of machinery for the full value and hence refund of money in cash to the complainant amounts to misutilisation of the loan and misappropriation of public money. If at all any dispute arise after the payment by the bank, the opposite party should have brought it to the notice of the bank and sorted out. In the present case the Ext.A1 is the tax invoice for 2 machines purchased against the payment of Rs.4,07,000/- made, which clearly shows that the complainant has purchased machinery worth 48,000/- and was demanding the balance amount in cash, there by defrauding the bank and defeating the every purpose of such loans granted to unemployed youth. From the proof affidavit filed by the complainant it is not clear why this issue was not brought to the notice of the Bank or made them a party to this complaint even through the payment to the opposite party was made from the loan sanctioned by the Bank. Hence the evidence adduced are insufficient to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite party.
5. Therefore the complaint is dismissed as one which is lacking any merits.
Pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of August, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1 : Tax invoice for 2 stitching machines purchase by the complainant
for Rs.48,000/- dated 11.01.2023.
Ext.A2 : Account Statement of the complainant with ESAF Bank, Adiperanda
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
