Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/292/2022

Nesan D - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Union Bank - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

          SRI.VIJU.V.R                        : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.292/2022 (Filed on : 22/07/2022)

ORDER DATED : 06/01/2023

COMPLAINANT

Nesan.D,

Vandayil Kunnumukal veedu,

Karippur.P.O – 695541

Nedumangaud, Thiruvananthapuram

(Party in person)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Manager,

Union Bank,

Saraswathy Complex,

Nedumagadu, Thiruvananthapuram - 695541

(Exparte)                                    

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party not appeared before this commission even after accepting the notice and hence declared exparte.

3.  The case of the complainant in short is that for the purpose of starting an industrial unit under PMEGP scheme, the complainant’s son submitted an application before the District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and the said application was forwarded to the opposite party bank for arranging loan under the above referred PMEGP scheme. On receipt of the application submitted by the complainant’s son through District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, the opposite party bank Manager contacted the complainant and requested to arrange required documents for processing the loan application. Accordingly, the complainant submitted all the required documents to the opposite party bank on 12/05/2022. As the District Industries Centre has verified and certified the viability of the industrial unit proposed by the complainant’s son, the opposite party bank manager agreed to sanction the loan amount. When the complainant contacted the bank, it was informed that the loan proposal cannot be considered on the ground that as per CIBIL report, the party has write off account as on 31/03/2022. According to the complainant, the complainant’s son is not having any loan dues with nationalized, scheduled or cooperative banks. According to the complainant except an installment due with a private furniture shop, there is no other due and hence the decision taken by the opposite party bank not to proceed with the loan application submitted by the complainant’s son is an arbitrary decision and the same amounts to deficiency in service. According to the complainant he and his son suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the indifferent attitude of the opposite party bank and hence approached this commission for redressing his grievances. As the opposite party not appeared before this commission to adduce the matter, they were called absent and set exparte on 13/09/2022.

4. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party being declared exparte, there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party.

 5. The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Ordered as to cost.

 

6.    Heard. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the communication dated 27/05/2022 send by the opposite party bank to the Taluk Industries office informing that the application of Mr.Nishanth (son of the complainant) under PMEGP scheme cannot be considered favourably as the CIBIL report shows that the party have write off account as on 31/03/2022. The definite case of the complainant is that his son has got no dues with any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative banks. Hence the burden is on the opposite party bank to establish that there is a CIBIL report against the complainant’s son. As the opposite party not cared to appear before this commission after accepting the notice from this commission, there is no contra evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. It is a well settled legal proposition that the banking and financial institutions have got a right to reject a loan application on sufficient grounds. Here in this case when the complainant claims that there is no due in the name of the complainant’s son with any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative banks the burden is on the opposite party bank to disprove the claim of the complainant before this commission by adducing evidence. The opposite party being declared exparte there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party. Hence in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence put forward by the complainant before this commission, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. As the mental agony and financial loss was caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 document, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. In the above circumstances, in                the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

              In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order, till the date of remittance / realization.   

            A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 6^th day of January 2023.

                                                                                                 Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                       Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                        Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.292/2022

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Nesan.D

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - copy of communication dated 27/05/2022 send by the opposite party bank

 

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party - NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                               PRESIDENT