DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.06.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            This case is filed through E-Daakhil and put up today for consideration on the point of admission. Earlier on 30.05.2023, the Commission heard on the point of admission from the Complainant and the complainant was present physically in the Commission. It was directed to the Complainant to confirm as you are a real consumer or not in accordance to the Complaint. The complainant has filed his opinion on 09.06.2023 through office email. But the complainant is found absent on both ways and has not taken any steps today. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the complainant has filed a complaint as the ops failed to keep their promises as assurance given by their agents. Further, the complainant submitted in the complaint about the defects/deficiency of the ops that, “though the wishfin.com and tata capital finance services promised me a loan of Rs.6.0lakh even after knowing that my home town is Aska which is 40kms away from their Berhampur branch”. Further, it founds that, all the discussions were done over the phone only between the Complainant and the agents of the OP Company. It cannot be treated as promise and there is no documents found in the case record where the O.Ps have promised to the present complainant to sanction loan.

                In the instant case, the oral agreement/promise made between the complainant and agents of Ops did not fulfil such conditions of the Act. Further, there is no specific written document filed by the complainant related to the promise made by the Ops found in the complaint. The emails which are filed by the complainant received from the Ops’ company are only related to submission of KYC documents, day to day communications, etc. which cannot be treated as that promise or agreement between the parties in accordance to the Indian Contract Act. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in National Paper Box Manufacturing Company and others versus State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & other 1995 (1) CPR 635 held that “The grant of loan is the discretionary power of the Bank and no grievance of deficiency in service can be raised against it for non grant of the same”. The ratio decidendi in the above case can be equated with the present case. As such the complaint is sans merit. Hence the complaint is rejected on the point of admission. No cost.

The Judgment and Order be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment and Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 through email or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 27.06.2023