Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/522

SMT.RAMDULARI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 22.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.273/2012 by the District Forum, Shivpuri)  

 

SMT. RAMDULARI.                                                            …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA.                            …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

13.05.2016

 

          Ms. Tina Trivedi, learned counsel for appellant.

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri in C.C.No.273/2012 whereby her complaint has been dismissed.

2.                     Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the order.

3.                     Brief facts of the case are that the appellant opened a savings bank account no. 3108987265 with the respondent bank and had also deposited Rs.5000/- for search report.  In fact, she applied to Madhya Pradesh Khadi Tatha Gramoudyog Board, Shivpuri for stone factory who in turn for sanction of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- forwarded her matter to Central Bank of India, Shivpuri the respondent herein.  The respondent refused to grant her loan, therefore, the appellant has filed the complaint which was dismissed by the Forum.

4.                     The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.                     On going through the record we find that it is an admitted position that the appellant had a savings bank account with the respondent bank and had

-2-

also deposited Rs.5000/- for search report regarding grant of loan. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the appellant is not a consumer of the respondent bank. However, it is well settled that the Bank have considerable discretion to grant or not to grant any loan and while doing so it cannot be said that bank has committed deficiency in service.

6.                     In view of the above discussion we find that the respondent bank has not committed any deficiency in service and therefore the appellant is not entitled to get any relief.  The appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage having no merits at all.