Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member
The Complainant lodged this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that he had applied for a loan to the Block Development Officer, Mekhliganj under SVSKP (Swami Vivekananda Swamber Karmasonsthan Prakalpa). The Block Development Officer, Mekhliganj had granted a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and sent the sanctioned letter to the OP. Subsequently, the OP obtained all the documents of the Complainant, received Rs.100/- (Annexure- “A “) and issued Form in respect of Dairy Farm under the said scheme. On 08.09.17, the Complainant was informed that the loan was sanctioned and the OP demanded Rs.1,110/- for processing fees, which was deposited vide Money Receipt No.F-2976 dated 08.09.17 (Annexure “B “).
It is alleged that one day the Complainant received a phone call from the OP and demanding Rs.15,000/- from him, for which he made a written complaint before Block Development Officer, Mekhliganj (Annexure “C “). As the loan amount was not disbursed, he made a complaint before the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar for mediation. The staff of the OP appeared but nothing emerged out of that. So, Complainant filed this case praying for an order directing upon the OP to disburse the amount of loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in his favour, refund of Rs.100/- and Rs.1,110/-taken from him as charge for Form of Dairy Farm and processing charge, Rs. 50,000/- as financial loss and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost.
On behalf of the OP, w/v, evidence on affidavit etc. were filed and the OP admitted that the application of the Complainant for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of Diary Farm was also received. According to them, loan sanctioning authority is Bank only and for the purpose of the said loan, necessary fees etc. were taken, but later, the loan sanctioning authority i.e. Board Director of the OP/Bank i.e. Cooch Behar Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. did not recommend for sanctioning of the loan for various reasons viz. lack of filing of documents etc., which was duly communicated to the Complainant. The OP also filed several documents viz. copy of application for the Membership of the Complainant, Application for loan, Parcha etc., copy of resolution of the loan sanctioning authority, spot verification report, Return of documents of the Complainant etc. So, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion.
Having gone through the contentions of the parties as stated in their respective pleadings and also the documents it is found that the Complainant had applied for a loan under SVSKP for that he had paid the fees of the form and also required the fees for processing fees etc. But finally it is found that the said loan was not sanctioned in his favour by the O.P. The documents filed by the O.P. reveals that the fact of non sanctioning of the loan in favour of the Complainant was duly communicated to the concerned Block Development Officer. In such circumstances, following definition of the “consumer” in accordance with the Consumer protection Act, 1986, the Complainant cannot said to be a consumer for the purpose of this case. Therefore, this case is not at all maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed.
This apart, the case of the O.P. is that the prayer of the Complainant for sanction of loan in his favour was rejected by the O.P. Bank authority, as the Complainant failed to submit all the proper documents which are needed for consideration in sanctioning loan.
It is the admitted position that the Bank has the authority to decide to whom. It would sanction loan considering all the relevant aspects. The Consumer Forum should not direct the Bank authority to advance loan to a person whose prayer was rejected owing to insufficient document etc.
The decision III(2008) CPJ 456 referred to on behalf of the Complainant is of no use in this case, as the facts and circumstances are different.
In such a situation no question arises as to any deficiency in service and or unfair trade practice of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
This Forum has nothing to do with the alleged demand of money from the Complainant.
Hence, it is -
Ordered
That the present Case No. CC/84/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule. The copy of the Final Order also available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
