LAWS(NCD)-2007-11-42

SYNDICATE BANK Vs. VIJESHK K P

Decided On November 27, 2007
SYNDICATE BANK Appellant
V/S
VIJESHK K P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE order assailed before us has been passed by the CDRF, Kannur in O. P. 47/2000 whereby the Forum has directed the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs. 7,000 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 follows: 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 Auto-rickshaw under the PMRY scheme. After the interview his name was recommended by the Taluk Industries Officer and on 12. 10. 1998, the complainant received a post-card from the opposite party calling the complainant to contact them. On 13. 10. 1998, the complainant went to the opposite party and requested for the loan, as recommended by the Taluk Industries Officer. Even after repeated visits and requests 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. 12,000 with 12% interest.

(3.) 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 34 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 no 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.