Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/110/2013

K.M. MARIMUTHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA, THE BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

K. RAMESH

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE        Thiru. J.JAYARAM                  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

F.A.NO. 110/2013

[Against the Order in  C.C.No. 200/2012 dated 27.12.2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

 

DATED THIS THE 26^th   DAY OF MAY 2015

K.M.Marimuthu

S/o, K.Muthu,

195/98, J3, SMD, Godown,

6^th street, Samichettipalayam

Coimbatore 641 047                                     ..Appellant/complainant

                                         Vs

1.M/s State Bank of India,

Rep.by its Branch Manager,

S.R.K.V Branch, Coimbatore

 

2. M/s State Bank of India,

Rep.by its Assistant General Manager

Zonal Office, 1^st

Coimbatore

 

3. M/s District Industries Centre

Rep.by its General Manager

Coimbatore – 1                                       ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant         : M/s K.Ramesh

Counsel for Respondents/opp.parties 1&2 : M/s S.Natarajan

Counsel for 3^rd Respondent/3^rd opp.party  : M/s T.Ravikumar

 

       This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 20.4.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

                        ORDER

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No. 200/2012 dated 27.12.2012 dismissing the complaint.

2.      The case of the complainant is that he applied for a loan under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation scheme and the 3^rd opposite party sponsored/recommended his name to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party collected the processing fee of Rs.400/- from the complainant on 3.9.2010 and even after fulfilling the requirements of the 1^st opposite party, after a long delay, on 20.11.2011, his application was rejected as not viable and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint.

3.      According to the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant did not satisfy the conditions for granting loan and hence his application was returned along with the documents submitted by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint, holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   

5.         The contention of the appellant/complainant is that, though he satisfied all the conditions as required by the opposite parties 1 and 2, loan was not sanctioned by the Respondent/opposite parties 1 and 2. Per contra, according to the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant did not fulfill the conditions required for granting loan and so his loan application was rejected as the project was not viable.

6.             The condition as required by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is to produce the lease deed for the project site of the processing unit. The complainant submitted an un-registered lease agreement dated 11.10.2010 only for 11 months which is Ex.A.4 which was not accepted by the opposite parties and consequently his loan application was rejected as the project was not viable, at their discretion.

7.            For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not granting the loan to the complainant, though his name was sponsored by the 3^rd opposite party.

8.           The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no infirmity in the order.  We agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint.

9.       There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

                  In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint.

                 No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        J. JAYARAM                    

        MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER