KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.469/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 22.01.2024

(Against the Order in C.C.No.241/2015 of CDRF, Kannur)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Ajitha Devi S.L.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Advs. K.N. Justin & B. Ajith)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C.No.241/2015 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (the District Commission for short) against the order dated 13.06.2016 dismissing the complaint.

   The averments contained in the complaint in short are as follows:

          2.       One year back the complainant had applied for a loan from the Thrikkakkara Branch of Kerala Gramin Bank under the “Rinn Mukthi Scheme” introduced by the Kerala State Government.  The above scheme was introduced to redress the grievance of the persons who had availed loan from money lenders.  The complainant was such a victim who had borrowed cash from money lenders and he was declared as insolvent by the District Collector.  The Bank had arbitrarily rejected the loan application of the complainant for the reason that the complainant is a person aged more than sixty years and unable to provide security.  According to the complainant the Bank Manager had delayed the matter.  When the loan was applied for, the complainant had not completed sixty years of age and on account of the delay caused by the Manager in processing the loan application his entitlement to get the loan was defeated as he attained sixty years of age in the meantime.  The Complainant sought for intervention of the District Commission by giving a direction to the Bank Manager to sanction a loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only).

          3.       The opposite party had entered appearance and filed a version with the following contentions:

          The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant was not eligible for a loan in view of the guidelines issued in this regard.  The loan application was rejected for valid reasons in consonance with the guidelines fixed by the Kerala Gramin Bank.  There was no negligence on the part of the Branch Manager.  Grant of a loan is within the discretion of the Bank and the Bank had exercised its discretion properly.  So the opposite party would seek for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.       The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A7.  No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party.  Exhibit B1 was marked. 

          5.       The appeal was filed by the appellant in person. In the appeal memorandum it is alleged that the District Commission did not consider the evidence let in by the appellant in its proper perspective.  According to him the Bank Manager had caused delay by retaining his loan application for a duration of one year and ultimately rejected the same.  This aspect was not considered by the District Commission.

6.       Though notice issued was properly served there was no representation on the side of the respondent.

          7.       Heard the appellant.  The records from the District Commission were called for and perused.  The complainant testified himself as PW1.  Exhibit A1 is the copy of the pass book issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant.  Exhibit A2 is the application filed by the complainant on 22.05.2015 for the grant of a loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only).  Exhibit A3 is a copy of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Talassery to the effect that the complainant has been conducting a Homoeo Clinic within the limits of Talassery Taluk for the last twenty years.  Exhibit A4 is another certificate issued by the Secretary of Malloor Grama Panchayat in favour of the complainant to the effect that the complainant has been conducting a Homoeo Clinic from 1975 onwards and he has got registration for practicing Homoeopathy.  Exhibit A5 is a copy of another certificate issued by the Village Officer, Tholambra Village in favour of the complainant that he has been practicing Homoeopathy for the last thirty years.  Exhibit A6 is the copy of the aadhar card of the complainant and Exhibit A7 is the age certificate pertaining to him.

          8.       As against the evidence let in by the complainant the opposite party had caused production of Exhibit B1 the scheme of swiping of individuals in distress from non-banking institutions by the name “Rinn Mukthi Scheme”.  The relief now sought for in the complaint is a direction to be issued to the Branch Manager for granting a loan in favour of the complainant.  No such direction can be issued to a Bank since it is the discretion of the Bank to disburse loan in accordance with the guidelines issued by the higher authorities.  No one can compel a Bank to disburse a loan.  Exhibit B1 is the relevant guidelines with regard to the disbursement of the loans under the “Rinn Mukthi Scheme”. 

9.       Five conditions are stipulated for the eligibility to grant such a loan.

1)      The individual who had raised loans from non institutional source.

2)      The individual should not be a defaulter to any Bank.

3)      The applicant should be a resident of a service area of the Bank branch.

4)      The applicants have enough capacity to repay.

5)      The applicant shall be a person between the age of eighteen and sixty years.

 10.    The assertion contained in the complaint itself would show that the complainant was declared as a ‘pauper’ by the District Collector.  So it is evident that the complainant had no capacity to repay the amount.  The age certificate submitted by the complainant would show that he was aged 62 years on 28.11.2015.  Exhibit A2 was filed by the complainant before the Bank on 22.05.2015.  So at the time of filing the complaint Exhibit A2 the complainant had crossed the age of sixty years.  So he is not eligible to avail this loan in view of the fifth clause in Exhibit A1.  According to the appellant the Bank Manager had delayed the matter and in the meantime, he had crossed sixty years of age.  This contention does not appear to be correct.  The recital contained in Exhibit A2 would show that in the year 2014, the complainant was advised by the District Collector to avail a loan under the “Rinn Mukthi Scheme”.  So it is evident that the proposal for availing loan arose after 2014.  The age certificate produced by the complainant would convincingly prove that he had attained the age of sixty two years in 2015.  So also, it could be seen that he had crossed sixty years of age in 2014.  The Bank Manager had exercised the discretion and rejected the application filed by the complainant for sanctioning the loan. 

11.     The stand taken by the Bank is strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the higher authorities.  Exhibit B1 would convincingly establish that the complainant was not eligible for getting a loan as per the stipulations and accordingly his request was declined.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Branch Manager in rejecting the loan application.  The District Commission had properly appreciated the evidence on record and reached a correct conclusion.  We find no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SL