PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 31st day of March 2022
C.C. 196/2020
Complainants
- Faseena Vallil
Vallil House
Adukkath P. O
Kuttiadi Via
Kozhikode – 673 508
- Ismail Vallil
Vallil House
Adukkath P. O
Kuttiadi Via
Kozhikode – 673 508
(By Adv. Sri. Pavithran .K)
Opposite Party
The Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Seemax Tower
Maruthomkara Road Kuttiadi
Kozhikode – 673 508
(By Adv. Sri. C. K. Madhusudan)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The complainants have approached this Commission with a prayer to direct the opposite party bank to permit them to repay the outstanding education loan amount in nine monthly installments and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for the monetary loss, mental agony and loss of time on account of the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the bank.
3. The opposite party has filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint and any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. According to the opposite party, the request for One Time Settlement preferred by the complainants was rejected by the Recovery Department and this was intimated to the complainants. On enquiry, it is revealed that the complainants are financially sound and capable of repaying the loan in full and hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The points that arise for determination in this case are :
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or
deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the prayer for allowing installments and the
claim for compensation is allowable?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Point No.1 and 2: Going by the pleadings, it can be seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the complainants have availed education loan from the opposite party bank and the loan account has been irregular and the bank has initiated recovery actions. The first relief sought for is to allow the complainants to repay the outstanding education loan in nine monthly installments. The second prayer is for recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite party.
6. The case was posted for the evidence of the complainant several times. But the complainant remained absent and did not file affidavit or adduce any evidence. It is for the complainant to prove the allegations in the complaint by adducing proper evidence. But the complainants in this case have chosen to remain absent when the case was posted for evidence. They utterly failed to prove their case. No deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged is proved against the opposite party.
7. Point No.3: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, CC 196/2020 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of March 2022.
Date of Filing: 06/10/2020
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
NIL
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
NIL
Witnesses for the Complainant
NIL
Witnesses for the opposite parties
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
