KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.315/13

JUDGMENT DATED 30/12/2013

(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.237/2012 on the file of CDRF, Idukki  dated, 29/01/2013)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                             :        MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.      The General Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Idukki, Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki District.

2.      The Branch Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Vazhathoppu Branch, Thadiyanpadu P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv:  Sri. S. Suresh Babu)                   

                   Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.     Shaji Joseph,

Maliyekkal House, Manippara P.O.,

Karimban, Idukki District.

2.     Joseph Thomas,

Elavumparayil House, Manippara P.O.,

Karimban, Idukki District.

(By R1 & R2 Advs:  M/s. K.K. Rajeev Punnapuram

                                              & N.G. Mahesh)                    

3.     The Project Officer,

District Khadi and Village Industries Office,

Idukki, Thodupuzha, Idukki District.

(By Adv:     ..         )       

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants who preferred this appeal against the Order in C.C.No.237/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The Forum Below directed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to consider the loan application of the complainant.

          2.  The 1^st complainant is the son-in-law of 2^nd complainant who applied for a loan for Rs.20 Lakhs through the 3^rd respondent under the PMEGP scheme for industrial purpose.  The complainant was selected for the test and personal interview conducted by the 3^rd opposite party and accepted the proposal of the applicant  for the scheme under the Prime Minister’s Fund to avail more job opportunity for rural people.  The application form was submitted to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in order to start coconut oil producing unit allowed by the 3^rd opposite party.  It is alleged that the loan was deliberately delayed and rejected by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The complainant sustained heavy loss and injury due to the act of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  As per the scheme the complainant could have received a subsidy of Rs.7 Lakhs against the working capital from the 3^rd opposite party, if the loan could have disbursed in time.  The complaint is filed for direction to disburse the loan amount under the PMEGP fund of Government of India and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the delay and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

          3.  In the written version filed by the opposite party it is contended that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not a consumer of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  It is also denied that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not aware of the selection process of the complainant for PMEGP project.  They were also not aware of the loss of Rs.7 Lakhs towards subsidy. It is admitted that the 3^rd opposite party forwarded an application of the 1^st complainant for establishing an oil mill.  It is stated that on 26/08/2011 the                2^nd opposite party replied the 3^rd opposite party that the applicants were not eligible for the proposed loan.  The application was rejected on the ground that the 2^nd complainant had already mortgaged the property which was offered as security for the loan.  The