Karnataka

Mysore

CC/213/2018

Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSURU
No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara,
Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/213/2018
( Date of Filing : 18 Jun 2018 )
 
1. Raju
S/o Mahadevappa, No.291, Sarkari Uttanahalli,Hadajana Post, Mysore
MYSURU
KARNATAKA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Karnataka Bank Limited
Manager,Karnataka Bank Limited, C.A. No.1, C Block,Akkamahadevi road, J.P.Nagar, Mysore-8
MYSURU
KARNATAKA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 29 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

ORDERS ON MAINTAINBILITY

  1. This complaint is filed by the complainant inperson for the relief that opposite party is committed deficiency of service in not considering his loan application. Thereby, there is loss and as such he has sought for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
  2. After hearing the complainant, this matter is set down for orders.
  3. The point for our consideration are as follows:-
    1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
    2. To what order?
  4. Our findings on the above points are:-
    1. In the negative.
    2. As per following

 

 

  1.  

 

  1. Point No.1:- By going through the pleadings and the documents, this Forum finds that the complainant has approached DBC office for loan to start his cement business, since he is having account with opposite party, has requested the officer of DBC to forward to application to the opposite party’s Bank, accordingly, it was forwarded.  But, the opposite party – Manager and officer though collected all the documents, not sanctioned the loan.  Thereby, deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  As such, this complaint seeking compensation.
  2. By going through averments of documents, this Forum finds that there is no relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between complainant and opposite party since the opposite party has not extended any service or the complainant has not paid any consideration for such service.  Except that, there is correspondence with DBC by bank relating to the loan to be sanctioned to the complainant, there is no direct transaction between the complainant and opposite party relating to the sanction of loan through DBC.  In the circumstances, the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act.  As such, the present complaint is not maintainable.  Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
  3. Point No.2:-In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the present complaint is not maintainable.  Thereby, the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, the following

:: ORDER ::

  1. Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
  2. Give a copy of this order as per Rules.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.