D.O.F:10/12/2021

                                                                                                      D.O.O:20/07/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.232/2021

Dated this, the 20^th day of July 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Shabeebha. T M Aged 32 years

W/o Shuhaib Muhammed,

R/at Thalangara House, Seethangoli

P.O Ednad, Kasaragod District                                               : Complainant

(Adv: Ummu Aima. C.A)

                                                                        And

Bank of Baroda

Kasaragod Branch

Tigger Hill, Kasaragod – 671121                                            : Opposite Party

Rep by its Authorized Officer

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant is that she is a women entrepreneur.  She availed financial assistance from Opposite Party bank.  She enjoyed over draft fecility and Opposite Party bank assured increase in the approved limit of over darft but Opposite Party arbitrarily rejected the assurance in the increased limit of overdraft without any reason.  She requested her over draft to working capital loan.  The Opposite Party rejected saying that no such scheme is in existence.  Complainant relied on RBI  notification, covid resolution, but Opposite Party suppressed all the schemes and benefits to women entrepreneur.  The Opposite Party sanctioned 10 lakhs on 01-11-2021 as top up as housing loan.  The Opposite Party demanded immediate fore closure of her loan, adjusted her Rs. 3,60,000/- to adjust the other loan for which complainant was amenable.  The complainant requested to disperse the loan of Rs. 6,40,000/- as remaining amount of loan on 19-11/2021, she was informed that her account is classified as not performing asset, but later she was told that it was a technical error.  The Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by classifying her account as non- performing legally and illegal detention of sanctioned loan and delay in over draft enhancement.  The complainant sought Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation and for cost of litigation.

          The notice dated 14/12/2021 was issued to the authorized officer, Bank of Baroda, Kasaragod branch.  The notice sent by consumer Commission is received by the Opposite Party evidenced by the seal and signature of Opposite Party bank.  The notice informs the posting dates of 10-01-2022, complainant alone represented.  The Opposite Party no representation and thus case is taken up for evidence and orders stating Opposite Party set exparte.  The complainant did not adduce oral evidence.  The documents Ext A1 to A6 marked.  Ext A1 is conversation letter with Opposite Party, Ext A2 is screen shot of whatsapp chat, Ext A3 copy of e-mail sent to Opposite Party, Ext A4 is copy of account of gold loan statement , Ext A5 and A6 are statement of account.

          On the basis of averments pleadings and evidence adduced following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for any relief in the complaint?  If so for what reliefs?

All the points are considered together for convenience

     On perusal and readings of the averments in the complaint, document produced -namely.  Ext A1 to A6, there is no specific instance of showing any deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party bank to the complainant so as to claim any relief against the Opposite Party.  It is true that the complainant produced Ext A1 to A6 documents.

     The Complainant has failed to produce any evidence either  documentary or oral as to the nature of deficiency in service by Opposite Party to fix any liability on the bank.  The only grievance that Opposite Party did not consider her request to convert or over draft into working capital term loan and non-dispersal of short loan.  Non dispersal of short loan non- converting overdraft into working capital term loan are all within the discretionary power of the Opposite Party based on the conduct and the relationship of the complainant with the bank there is no evidence of any short coming instance of deficiency in service or negligence or any other unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party bank and hence even though Opposite Party is treated as exparte, in the absence of any evidence for the relief claimed.  There is no merit in the claim put forward by the complainant.

     In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.

       Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Copy of whats app conversation paper

A2- Screenshot of whats app chat

A3- Copy of e-mail sent to Opposite party

A4- Copy of account of gold loan statement.

A5 & A6 – Statement of account.

     Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                   Assistant Registrar