IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 247 of 2023 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.79 of 2018 dated 14.09.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Nagapattinam] Friday, the 28^th day of February 2025 DBS Bank India Limited (Formerly M/s.Lakshmi Vilas Bank)

Rep. by its Branch Manager Thirumangalam Branch Kuttalam Taluk Nagapattinam District. .. Appellant/

Opposite party - Vs -

K. Elangovan S/o. Kathirvelu

2/88, Colony Street Murugamangalam Nagapattinam District. .. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. V. Shankar For the Respondent/Complainant : Served, Called Absent This appeal came up for final hearing on 23.08.2024 and, on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the opposite party, as against the order dated 14.09.2022, in C.C. No.79 of 2018, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, in part.

2. The appellant is the Opposite Party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Commission, is as follows :-

The complainant is the customer of the opposite party Bank. He had studied upto 8^th standard and belongs to Adi Dravidar community. The complainant submitted an application through on- line, on 02.12.2015 for loan to TAHDCO, to start his own Dairy Farming business under ‘2015-2016 Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP). After scrutinizing the application of the complainant and conducting personal interview, TAHDCO forwarded the papers to the opposite party Bank. Accepting the recommendations of TAHDCO the opposite party agreed to grant a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- under EDP scheme to the complainant and also forwarded Form III towards grant of subsidy to TAHDCO. Hence, a subsidy amount of Rs. 90,000/- was released by TAHDCO to the opposite party bank account. The above said facts was informed by TAHDCO vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 to the complainant. But the opposite party Bank did not release the loan amount to the complainant. Though the complainant was repeatedly approaching the opposite party in person, there was no proper response from the opposite party. Even after a lapse of 10 months the loan was not sanctioned by the opposite party Bank. The loan amount was not disbursed to the complainant, by the opposite party, inspite of the recommendations of the District Collector, TAHDCO and government officials. The complainant was trying to obtain loan from the year 2015 and with great difficulty TAHDCO sanctioned the loan to the complainant on 30.03.2017. But the opposite party though accepted to sanction the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- later failed to disburse the amount. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 03.07.2018 to the opposite party. Thereafter, by letter dated

06.07.2018 the opposite party informed the complainant that since the CIBIL score of the complainant is below the required level, the Bank could not sanction the loan. Denying the said contention of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not disbursing the loan amount, though initially agreed to sanction a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the complainant claims for a direction to the opposite party, a) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service ;

b) To pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss sustained by the