DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 05/09/2022
CC/167/2022
Junais P
S/o.Marakkar P
Panakkadan Veedu,
Thenkara P.O. Vellaramkunnu,
Mannarkkad – 678 582 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
Bank of Baroda,
Mannarkkad Branch,
Opp.Police Station.
Rep.by its Manager - Opposite party
(By Adv. Suresh G. Nair)
O R D E R O N T H E Q U E S T I O N O F M A I N T A I N A B I L I T Y
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complaint grievance, abridged, is that the complainant an unemployed youth who is eligible to receive various benefits floated by the Government for facilitating self employment. The complainant filed application for availing a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under one such scheme for buying two cows. But the opposite party bank rejected the application of the complainant after 2 months. Such rejection of application tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. This complaint is filed seeking compensation for such rejection.
2. Since the relationship between the parties had not fructified into a contractual relationship, we framed a preliminary issue before considering the entire factual matrix.
“Whether there is a consumer –service provider relationship between the parties in the facts and circumstance of the case.”
3. Complainant emphasized his stand that his grievance is not that the opposite parties rejected is application, but that there was a delay of two months in rejecting his application.
4. Even if it is not the case of the complainant that rejection tantamount to deficiency in service, it would be advisable to make a reference here that a loan or financial assistance would be granted to an applicant only after ascertaining the fact that the applicant has the infrastructure and means of effecting repayment of the financial assistance so granted lest the institution falls to loss. It is the incumbent duty on the part of the administration of a financial institution to make sure that an applicant will not make losses to the institution. To that extent the bank has to verify and ascertain that the applicant and application fits various parameters.
5. Such administrative procedures would require time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant alleges that the bank took two months to reject his application. We do not find any deficiency in service in taking two months to ascertain the financial credibility / viability of providing financial assistance to the complainant who admittedly has got no assets.
6. Since, the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party stood withered at the proposal stage itself and since we are of the opinion that two months is only a natural period for ascertaining the financial viability of a business transaction, we hold that the relationship between parties had not evolved into a consumer – service provider mode. Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.
7. Resultantly this complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
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.
