KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 507/03 JUDGMENT DATED.27.11.2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Syndicate Bank, Panoor Branch, rep by its Manager -- APPELLANT Panoor Branch, Panoor. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura & Others) Vs. Vijeshk.K.P. Kandambath House, Panniyannoor Amsom Desom, -- RESPONDENT Panniyannoor Post. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR:MEMBER The order assailed before us has been passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP.47/2000 whereby the forum has directed the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.250 as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. 2. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has come up in appeal. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer and the Forum below has failed in appreciating the facts of the case in its proper perspective. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3. The complainant/respondent is an unemployed youth who has passed the SSLC examination and in order to earn a livelihood he wanted to purchase an Autorickshaw under the PMRY scheme. After the interview his name was recommended by the Taluk Industries Officer and on 12.10.98, the complainant received a post card from the opposite party calling the complainant to contact them. On 13.10.98, the complainant went to the opposite party and requested for the loan, as recommended by the District Industries Officer. Even after repeated visits and request to the opposite party, the opposite party did not release the loan and the complainant was asked to come on May 15th 1999 to get the loan released. On that date also the complainant was informed that the loan would be sanctioned on or before 10th January 2000. Even on that date also the loan was not released and the complainant filed the present complaint before the Forum claiming compensation of Rs.12000 with 12% interest. 4. The appellant/opposite party filed its version contending that, the complainant is not a consumer and the loan was not sanctioned because of the paucity of funds and the complainant was one among the 34th applicants and only 10 were given loan and the remaining applicants were not considered for the payment of loan. It was contended that there was n negligence on the part of the opposite party as they did not give any assurance to the complainant that the loan would be sanctioned to him. 5. The Forum below has passed the order based on the evidence of PW1, the complainant, and three documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. On the side of the opposite party a bank staff was examined as DW1 and documents were marked as Exts.R1 and R2. 6. We heard the counsel for the appellant. The respondent remained ex-parte; and as such we had no opportunity to hear the respondent’s side. However, the lower court records were called for and were perused by us. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant/respondent is not a consumer as he has not availed the services of the opposite party. It is also contented that the bank had not committed any deficiency in service as the loan could not be sanctioned, because of the paucity of funds and because the District Industries Officer had considered the project as economically non-viable. It is further argued by the learned counsel that there was no legal obligation or duty cast on the bank to intimate the complainant about the non-sanctioning of the loan, as the opposite party has intimated the facts and circumstances of the sanctioning of the loan to the higher authority on 15.3.99. The learned counsel also disputed the assertion of the complainant that he had visited the opposite party many times and the award of compensation on the grounds of mental agony and expenses met by the complainant are un-sustainable. The counsel urged before us that there was no supporting materials for awarding compensation on the above grounds and as such the order of the forum is liable to be set aside. 8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and the documents produced before the forum by both parties. We have also perused the deposition of DW1. In cross examination he has stated re-paying capacity He has also stated 9. On a careful examination of the above statement it can be seen that the stand taken by the opposite party in non payment of the loan is on conflicting grounds. It is stated by DW1 that the loan was not sanctioned because of the in- capacity of the complainant for re-payment that the loan was not sanctioned. In the version, it is stated that the loan was not sanctioned because of the paucity of funds and because of excess number of applicants than those who could be given the loan. It is noted that no details regarding the persons to whom loan was sanctioned was furnished by the opposite party. It is also not stated the status of the complainant in the list and there is no evidence to show that the complainant was informed that he would not be given the loan. It is argued that the remaining applications were forwarded to the head office of the opposite party bank on 5.3.99 and no intimation need be given to the complainant stating the fact that the loan would not be sanctioned. 10. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the appellant /opposite party. Moreover the opposite party ought not have asked the complainant/respondent to come again on 10th May 1999 when all the receiving applications were returned on 5.3.99 and there was no chance of giving loan to the complainant. The complainant is a beneficiary of PMRY scheme and if the loan is sanctioned the same has to be repaid to the bank in suitable installments. The complainant also would have got some subsidy on the loan as it is recommended by the Taluk Industries Officer. The opposite party cannot deny the loan on the ground that the complainant had no capacity for the repayment of loan as the complainant was recommended for payment considering his capacity for repayment. In the above circumstances, we are unable to hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as ordered by the forum below. 11. However, we find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has suffered loss or injury due to the non-sanctioning of the loan. Apart from the assertion that the complainant had endured mental agony due to the non sanctioning of loan and if he had been informed of the opposite party’s attitude, he could have resorted to other remedies for obtaining the loan and purchasing the autorickshaw for eking his livelihood no evidence is tendered by him. The amount awarded by the lower forum is Rs.5000/-. We do find force in the argument that this amount is very much on the high side. We are of the opinion that Rs.2000/- will suffice the situation and regarding the expenses met by the complainant the lower forum has awarded Rs.2000/- we have no doubt that complainant had to attend the interview and incurred expenses in connection with the journeys to the bank for getting the loan. Hence, the award of compensation of that score is not interfered and we uphold the payment of cost of Rs.250/- which is only very reasonable. In the result, this appeal is disposed of as indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. | 
