Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President — The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein). The District Forum, Pali by its order dated 14.3.1991 passed in Complaint Case No. 10/91 held that the complainant is not a consumer. It is not necessary to give a detailed resume of facts. Suffice it to state that the complainant applied for grant of loan to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, District Industries Centre, Mandia Road, Pali Marwar (Opp. Party-respondent). He submitted an application and deposited the required amount for processing the matter for grant of loan. In fact, the matter was processed as there was exchange of letters between the parties. The District Forum has stated in the order that the matter of granting loan to the complainant is under consideration of the Head Office at Jaipur and as such it has no jurisdiction. Apart from that it was stated that the complainant is a businessman and he has applied for grant of loan from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation for his business and, therefore, he is not a consumer.

2. The complainant-appellant submitted a photostat copy of letter No. RPC/PL/F/51 dated 5/8.4.1991 received by him from Dy. Manager (Loans) (Member Secretary-DLAC). The aforesaid letter was received by him which has been produced with the appeal. The appeal was received by post on 12.4.1991. By that letter the complainant was informed that it is not possible to consider favourably his application for financial assistance from the Corporation and, therefore, his application has been rejected and filed. It is stated that a person who applies for the financial assistance from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is not a “consumer as Envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, for, the relationship is that of a borrower or a debtor with the Financial Corporation. In this connection reference may be made to the latest decision of the National Commission rendered in M/s. Agarwal Dyeing Industries v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Others, II (1991) CPJ 341. (First Appeal No. 2/91 decided on August 19, 1991) in which it was observed as under:—

“We have already held in several cases that out of such a relationship a consumer dispute cannot arise. The complaint therefore deserves to be rejected……”

It may be recapitulated that on 5/ 8.4.1991 the complainant appellant has informed that his application for financial assistance from one Corporation cannot be considered favourably and so it is rejected. On the basis of the principles laid down by the National Commission in several cases the appellant is not a “consumer” and, therefore, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum, Pali. No other point survives for our consideration in this appeal.

There is no merit in this appeal. It cones-quently fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

__