By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Prasanna Anil Kumar, Poolachalil (H), Makkiyad (P.O), Wayanad against Manager, Bharath Financial Inclusion Limited, Panthipoyil, Padinjarathara, Wayanad as Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.
2. The Complainant alleges that she had availed a loan from the Opposite Party. The Complainant states that she was paying the instalments regularly through the agent of the Opposite Party every week. It is further stated that, on enquiry it was revealed that an outstanding balance of Rs.12,000/- is remaining towards the loan and the Complainant understood that the amount recorded in the minutes book of the bank is only Rs.6,000/-. Hence the Complainant made an enquiry in the bank and learnt that the agent who collected the amount had not remitted the amount in the bank. Therefore the Complainant approached the bank on different occasions and filed a police complaint but all the efforts were ended in vein. Since the cibil score etc of the Complainant is high, the Complainant states that she is not in a position to avail loan from any financial institutions.
3. In these circumstances the Complainant approached this Commission with request to issue direction to the Opposite Party to close the loan of the Complainant by remitting the amount by the bank.
4. Even though notice was sent to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had not turned up and therefore set exparte. In these circumstances the Commission has to verify the true facts of the case from the complaint and evidences filed by the Complainant. The Complainant produced only one document which is a photo copy of minutes of the bank dated 23.05.2023 which is marked as Ext.A1.
5. The following are the points to be analysed in this case to derive into an inference.
- Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
- If so, the compensation and costs for which the Complainant is entitled to get?
6. The Complainant has produced Ext.A1 which is a copy of the minutes in
which no information regarding the details stated in the complaint is available. Nothing is written in it except the name Prasanna and an amount 400 + 400 = 800 which in no way can be connected with the facts stated in the complaint by Prasanna Anil Kumar who is the Complainant. The Complainant had not mentioned the amount and other details of loan availed by her from the Opposite Party. More over the so called agent is not made party who is alleged to have collected the amount from the Complainant.
7. In the absence of any evidence there is no chance to segregate the pros and cons of the complaint and therefore point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, point No.2 is not considered by the Commission.
In the above circumstances, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me
and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of September 2024.
Date of filing:02.02.2024.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Prasanna Anil Kumar. Complainant
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Photo copy of Minutes. dt:23.05.2023
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
