AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS complaint in 25 pages does not specifically state as to what is the grievance of the complainant. As stated in the written version by the opposite party, in the complaint, in one page it is stated that the opposite party shall be ordered to pay compensation to the complainant and in another page it is stated that the opposite party must be ordered to provide employment to the complainant''s daughter. As rightly contended by the opposite party, this Commission cannot simply order the opposite party to grant loan to the complainant. It is common case that the complainant has been once granted a loan of Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing a cow. It is even according to the complainant herself that amount was repaid by her with great difficulty. Now the complainant has requested the opposite party to grant her a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing a bullock cart with tyres. But considering the complainant''s own case in the complaint that she had with great difficulty paid the first loan of Rs. 5,000/-, it would appear that the opposite party''s fear that they would never be able to recover if the loan of Rs. 25,000/- is granted to the complainant is quite reasonable and it is understandable that therefore the opposite party is not willing to grant the said loan to the complainant. Granting loan is the discretion of the opposite party depending upon a number of circumstances. Similarly, the opposite party cannot be directed to give any employment to the complainant''s daughter. Thus we find no merit in the complaint.
HENCE the complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.