BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No.303/2002 Filed on 15.07.2002<br /> Dated : 28.04.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant :<br /> G. Raveendran, Korathalavila Veedu, Thalayal, Aralummoodu P.O, Neyyattinkara.<br /> (By adv. Sri. D. Sukritha Raj)<br /> Opposite parties :<br /> 1.The Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Regional Office, Indian Bank Towers, Near Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.The Manager, Indian Bank, Balaramapuram Branch. <br /> (By adv. Sri. P. Krishnankutty Nair)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27.05.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 04.04.2008, the Forum on 28.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> The complainant is an unemployed and a poor man. The complainant was approved a loan for Rs. 30000/- on 03.03.2001 by the Malayinkeezh Block under the self-employment scheme and the same was directed to the 2nd opposite party for issuance of loan. The Government had provided subsidy for the same also. Though the complainant had complied with the direction of 2nd opposite party, the loan was not granted to him even after repeated requests. The loan has been approved by the Government and the 2nd opposite party is only a Bank which has to disburse it. The non-disbursement of the same amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a compensation of Rs. 50000/-. <br /> <br /> The 2nd opposite party has filed a version for and on behalf of the 1st opposite party also. The opposite parties contended that the 2nd opposite party is functioning under the direction of the 1st opposite party, guided and controlled by Reserve Bank of India. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and it is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant was recommended for a loan of Rs. 30000/- under SGSY scheme of Block Development Officer, Nemom Block. This recommendation does not entitle the complainant to avail loan. This opposite parties are bound by the rules and regulation of RBI and subject to study the feasibility and repaying capacity of the complainant and of his proposal. Since the complainant had already availed loan from service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and that being the fact the complainant is not entitled to get loan as it will result in double financing and on getting report thereof, was communicated to the Block Development Officer on 09.04.2001. The complainant opened an S.B. Account with the 2nd opposite party at his own desire and will. And opening of SB Account will not entitle the complainant to get the loan sanctioned in his favour. No consideration was received by the 2nd opposite party to grant loan. Hence the complainant cannot be termed as a “Consumer”. The complainant not being a consumer, he is not entitled to claim any relief through this Hon'ble Forum. All disputes with regard to maintenance of account, loan etc. has to be decided by the Banking Ombudsman, under the scheme of 1995. Hence this Forum lacks jurisdiction. Hence to dismiss the complaint with costs to these opposite parties. <br /> <br /> The complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on his side. No documentary evidence for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> The issues to be considered are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant alleges that he is an unemployed and under the self-employment scheme, he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 30000/- from the Malayinkeezh Block Office and the same was directed to the 2nd opposite party for disbursing the amount. But even after repeated requests no loan was sanctioned. But on going through the Exhibits marked no such document is seen on the records on file. The complainant alleges that he was asked to open an account with the opposite Bank for the purpose of the loan which the complainant has miserably failed to establish. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the grant of loan is discretionary on the part of the bank and loan can be granted only for deserving applicants. The opposite parties allege that since the complainant had availed a loan from Service Co-operative Bank, Balaramapuram and no double finance could be allowed. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get loan and the same was communicated to the Block Development Officer on 09.04.2001. Here the pertinent point to be considered is that whether the act of the opposite parties in not disbursing the loan is justifiable. The opposite party bank have rejected the claim of the complainant after due verification. When an application for loan is received by the Bank, the Bank is the only authority to find the credit worthiness of a party. The Bank has to safeguard its interest. Bank is a public financial institution and the funds involved are public money. In this case, no assurance has been given by the Bank for sanction of loan and the Bank has never agreed to advance any loan to the complainant which the complainant has failed to prove otherwise. The claim of the complainant has been seen rejected after due verification. It is a well settled position that the power of advancing loan is the discretion of Bank. The National Commission in 1(2003) CPJ 62 has held that no deficiency in service can be attributed in non-disbursement of loan. It is open to the Banking company to take a decision in good faith, in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it is safe to make advances of public funds to any person. In this circumstance, the Bank in its discretion if decides not to grant loan after consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed on their part. The complainant had alleged that the loan granted to him on 03.03.2001 was unduly delayed till 31.03.2002 by the 2nd opposite party and then cancelled by the opposite party. There is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the said allegation. Inspite of the pleadings no scrap of paper to support the same and the complainant has failed to prove his complaint. In view of the above discussions no negligence is found on the part of the opposite parties and this Forum is of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not granting loan to the complainant. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 28th April, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 303/2002<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of advocate notice dated 22.04.2002 addressed to the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> <br /> P2 - Original postal receipt dated 22.04.2002.<br /> <br /> P3 - Acknowledgement card addressed to the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> P4 - Acknowledgement card addressed to the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />