RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2015
(Against judgment and order dated 15-01-2015 in Complaint
Case No. 269/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Unnao )
Santosh Tripathi
S/o Sri Ramakant Tripathi
R/o 3/180 Adarsh Nagar
Shuklaganj, District Unnao
...Appellant
Vs.
01.Central Bank of India
Shuklaganj
District Unnao
Through Manager
02.Central Bank of India
Regional Office
117/H1/240 Pandu Nagar
Kanpur-208005
Through General Manager
03.Zila Nagriya Vikas Abhikaran Dooda
Vikas Bhavan, Unnao.
Through Pariyojana Adhikari
04.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
District Unnao
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Km. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1&2 : Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 : Sri Santosh Singh, Advocate.
Dated : 23-03-2017
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 15-01-2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Unnao in Complaint Case No. 269 of 2013 Santosh Tripathi V/s Central Bank of India, Shuklaganj and others whereby the District Consumer Forum has dismissed complaint filed by appellant/complainant.
:2:
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed present appeal.
Km. Mithilesh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared.
Mr. Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 appeared.
Mr. Santosh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 appeared.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the appellant has filed complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before District Consumer Forum, Unnao against respondents/opposite parties for redressal of his grievance arising out a transaction of loan allegedly sanctioned by respondent/opposite party no.3 under Swarna Jayanti Shahri Seva Rojgar Yojna. The allegation of complainant is that he moved application before opposite party no.3 for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under said scheme for business of cycle shop. After due enquiry loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned to him through Central Bank of India, Shuklaganj opposite party no.1 and the amount of subsidy Rs.37,500/-was sent to opposite party no.1 by opposite party no.3 through cheque dated 23-02-2013. But the bank opposite party no.1 demanded illegal gratification for releasing loan and on refusal of complainant to fulfil demand, the bank opposite party no.01 did not release loan to complainant and returned cheque to opposite party no.3 alleging that there is no loan file of complainant in bank. Consequently complainant sent notice to opposite parties and filed complaint before District Consumer Forum.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 namely Central Bank of India, Branch Shuklaganj and Central Bank of India, Regional Office filed written statement before District Consumer Forum and opposed complaint. It has been stated in written statement that no loan has been sanctioned by bank to complainant. As such complainant is not consumer of bank. It has been further stated in written statement that the complainant has not moved application in bank opposite party no.01. As such there is no justification to demand subsidy amount. The letter of bank annexed by complainant in this respect is forged.
:3:
In written statement it has been admitted by opposite parties no.1 and 2 that cheque of Rs.37,500/- was received in bank opposite party no.1 from opposite party no.3 in the name of complainant but there was no loan file in the bank in the name of complainant. As such cheque has been returned to opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.3 has also filed written statement before District Consumer Forum. Opposite party no.3 has stated in written statement that complainant had moved application before it for loan of Rs.2,00,000/-under Swarna Jayanti Shahri Seva Rojgar Yojana for the business of cycle shop and had given name of bank opposite party no.1 as nearest branch of bank. Opposite party no.3 has further stated that opposite party no.1 had sent letter to it on 26-11-2011 stating therein that loan of Rs.1,50,000/- has been sanctioned to complainant, subsidy amount should be sent to bank. Therefore cheque of subsidy amount of Rs.37,500/- was sent to opposite party no.1 by opposite party no.3.
After having gone through pleadings of parties and evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has held that there was no loan account of complainant in bank of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and complainant had not deposited margin money of loan in bank of opposite parties no.1 and 2. As such complainant is not consumer of opposite parties no.1 and 2.
District Consumer Forum has further held that opposite party no.3 has sanctioned loan to complainant without any consideration. As such complainant is not consumer of opposite party no.3 also.
I have examined the findings recorded by District Consumer Forum.
In paragraph 2 of complaint the complainant has stated that he applied before District Urban Development Authority (opposite party no.3) for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under Swarna Jayanti Shahri Seva Rojgar Yojana for cycle shop and gave name of Central Bank of India, Branch Shuklaganj as nearest bank. In paragraph 4 of complaint he has stated that loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned by Central Bank of India, Shuklaganj after due enquiry. But the Central Bank of India, Branch Shuklaganj opposite party no.1 as well as Central Bank of India, Divisional Office, Kanpur opposite party no.2 has denied that loan was sanctioned by bank. They have stated in written
:4:
statement that the complainant did never move application for loan in bank opposite party no.01 nor loan was sanctioned by the bank. They have further stated that the bank has not sent letter to DUDA opposite party no.3 for subsidy amount. The letter dated 26-11-2011 through which subsidy amount is alleged to have been demanded by bank is forged as there is no loan file of complainant in bank.
Admittedly opposite party bank has returned cheque of subsidy amount to DUDA with report that the bank could not find the file and sanction advice of loan of complainant and requested DUDA opposite party no.3 to send duplicate file of loan alongwith cheque. But DUDA opposite party no.3 did not sent duplicate file of loan of complainant alongwith cheque. If the loan had been sanctioned by DUDA, properly DUDA might have sent duplicate file of loan to bank alongwith cheque and in case of any default in discharge of duty by DUDA (opposite party no.3) complainant had opportunity to make complaint to higher authority but he has not made any complaint to higher authorities of DUDA and duplicate file of loan has not been sent to bank.
In view of above facts I am of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that loan was sanctioned to him by bank and cheque of subsidy amount was issued by opposite party no.3 in rightful manner and without any fraud or misrepresentation. District Consumer Forum has rightly declined to accept him consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Further more in view of facts discussed above I am of the view that there is no deficiency in service, neither there is any unfair trade practice.
In view of conclusions drawn above I am of the view that District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed complaint. Appeal has no force and is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by appellant/complainant to respondents/opposite parties.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
