Date of filang: 27.O1.2O2O Date of Disposa!: 13.03.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 13th DAY OF MARCH 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G.SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT and HON'BLE Mrs. DMASHREE M - LADY MEMBER scl29tAla5t2020 BETWEEN:

1. Ramesh Aged about 47 years Branch Manager SBI, Chitradurga Road Branch, Near Municipality Offi ce, Challakere Town, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.

2. Vipul Jain Major Asst., Manager, Loans (Advances)

SBI, Chitradurga Road Branch, Near Municipality Office, Challakere Town, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District........... Appellant/s (By Sri.N.G.Ravikumar, Advocate)

AND:

Kumari R Mamatha Aged about 29 years D/o Rajappa, Near Yellamma Temple, Janata Colony, Somagudda Road, Challakere Town, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. ........ Respondent/s (By Sri.Y.N.Narasimha Murthy, Advocate)

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed U/s.15 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) by the Appeilant chailenging the order dated:05.11.2019 passed in CC/292/20L9 on the file of Chitradurga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the District Commission).

2.

The Appellants were the Opposite parties,l & 2 (in short OPs) and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that;

The Complainant has filed an application before the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki ST Development Corporation, Chitradurga (in short KMVSTDC) for availing loan on subsidy basis to establish DTp center. KMVSTDC has considered her application and deposited Rs,3,50,000/- with Op bank with a direction to disburse the same to the Complainant. Inspite of taking stamp papers worth Rs.1,860/- from the Complainant and requests, Op bank refused to release the loan. Instead, withdrawn Rs.4,116/- from her SB a/c maintained in their bank.

Hence alleging deficiency in service, comprainant has fired compraint before the District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, the Op.1 & 2 have opposed the complaint by filing version.

They contended that, they have sent the subsidy claim form to the KMVSTDC. To release the subsidy subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the loan scheme. On 09.09.201g, they have conducted physical inspection, but there was no preparation or arrangements was made to establish DTp center.

Complainant was not present during the inspection. Her father was present at the spot but not produced required documents. Complainant was intending to avail the loan facility only for the purpose of subsidy not intending to establish DTP center. Thereby, not sailsfied with the proposal, request of the Complainant was rejected. They have not committed any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed her affidavit evidence as pW-1 and marked 8 documents as Ex-A1 to A8. On behalf of Ops, OP.1 has filed affidavit evidence as RW-1 and no documents came to be marked.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both sides allowed the complaint in part and directed Ops to disburse the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at 9o/o p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint towards loan amount after obtaining proper and required documents; to repay Rs.2,116/- with interest at 9olo p.a.

from 2t.02.2019 tiil realization; to pay Rs.30,000/_

as compensation for deficiency in service and also towards cost of the proceedings; in case of non_compliance of the order entire amount shall carry interest at loyo p.a.

till its realization. Aggrieved by the same, Ops have preferred this appeal.

7.

We have heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for Appellant/Op. Learned Counsel for Respondent/Complainant is absent.

8. Now the point that arise for our consideration ts;

Whether order of the