The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that complainant applied for loan under self employment scheme   “Udiyaman Swanirbhar Karmasanathan Prokalpa USKP 2008” before the District Employment Exchange, Chinsurah Hooghly. The Op no.2 sanction the aforesaid scheme in the name of the complainant and requested the oP no.1 on 13.5.2015 to dispose off the matter within 15 days.  The petitioner visited the office of the Op no.1 time and again but the oP  no.1 paid no heed thereof.  The petitioner sent a representation through his Advocate on 10.3.2016 stating that District Employment Exchange, Chinsurah, Hooghly sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- vide Memo no. CNS/USKP/14-15/MG /51(1) and your petitioner also stated that  the distributing authority of the said loan is your OP. The Op received the notice of the complainant but did not give any answer. Hence, this complaint.

            The Op contested the case by filing Evidence in chief denying inter alia all the  material allegations. Op also states that he did not receive any application or copy of application. It is also stated that if the petitioner would file such loan application , the Op would consider that petition under the said scheme USKV,

2008 and criteria as per law but in absence of any application it was not possible for them either to allow or reject the application. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service. The case should be dismissed .

            Complainant filed copy of letter dated 10.3.16, copy of letter dated 10.6.16 from Supdt. Of Post office and a letter dated 13.1.15 issued from District Employment Exchange , Chinsurah. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument. Op on the other hand filed Evidence in chief and B.N.A.

POINTS FOR DECISION :

1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                        

2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?                                                                                               

3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

   All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.

The complainant did not file any letter as alleged by him that the application screening committee of Joint Director of Employment , Chinsurah recommended the name of the petitioner but complainant did not file any paper issued by the said authority informing the complainant regarding sanction of loan nor there is

any evidence that the said authority or the complainant made application to the Bank authorities for implementation of the letter issued by District Employment Exchange dated 13.1.2015. Only this letter which is not proved by the complainant or the required authority . Only photocopy is filed. There is no iota of statement that the Employment Exchange authority made any correspondence with the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank. It is apparently clear that complainant had no touch and had no locus standi before the Bank and to make such case against the Bank. By not taking any action /step i.e. not filing any application for loan before the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, the complainant has been neglected upon himself . Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service arise on the part of the oP/Bank who did not obtain any effective correspondence neither from the complainant nor from the Employment. As such, the case fails. Hence it is –

                                                                        Ordered

            That the CC no. 104 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed  on contest. But no order as to cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.