Mr. K.P. Sinha, Member—This is a complaint filed by M/s. Mandal Plastic Industries through one of its partners, Ajay Kumar, against the Bihar State Financial Corporation through the Managing Director and the Manager, Subsidy, Bihar State Financial Corporation alleging that a subsidy of Rs. 1,93,000/- sanctioned to the petitioner by the State Government was not released by the B.S.F.C. resulting in a loss of Rs. 6,62,517/-. The complainant has sought relief of Rs. 6,62,517/- with 18% interest.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant, a registered partnership firm manufacturing Mono Filament entered into an agreement on 4.4.85 with the B.S.F.C. for a loan of Rs. 11.20 lacs for financing its industrial unit. The complainant could however avail of only Rs. 5.22 lacs and entered into second agreement on 29.1.88 raising the loan amount to Rs. 14.30 lacs. As per the agreement dated 4.4.85r the loan was to be paid in 18 half yearly instalments of Rs. 29,000/- each starting from December, 1988. Under the second agreement also the loan was to be repaid in 18 instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each. Another loan of Rs. 4.50 lacs was sanctioned by Canara Bank to meet the working capital requirements of their industrial unit. In June, 1989 the State Level Committee sanctioned a subsidy of Rs. 1,93,600/- to the complainant. It is contended that the complainant completed all the formalities relating to the release of subsidy by entering into agreement with the opposite party on 11.10.90. The B.S.F.C. however did not release the subsidy adversely affecting the growth and development of the unit and the complainant alleges to have suffered a total loss of Rs. 6,62,517/-. Non-release of the heavy amount has been characterised by the complainant as a deficiency in service by the BSFC on which ground, compensation has been sought by the complainant.

3. The learned Counsel for the opposite party appeared and made his pleadings and argued that the complaint was not maintainable because the unit was not a consumer vis-a-vis, the B.S.F.C. and further that the subsidy could not be released to the complainant because he was a Defaulter and did not make re-payment of the loan as per the agreement. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that the default in payment as per the agreement executed by the complainant was only of the order of 1,08,000/- and therefore there was no justification for withholding the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-. It was also pleaded that the complainant was a borrower of the B.S.F.C. and entered into an agreement with them and therefore he was a consumer. The case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Financial Corpn. decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was referred to and it was contended that the opposite party B.S.F.C. was power charged rather than duty conscious and the Supreme Court according to the complainant decided that the entire loan amount should be released timely unless there were very good reasons for not doing so which should be intimated.

4. We are not impressed with the arguments adduced on behalf of the complainant. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable in this case because the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the responsibility of a financial institution vis-a-vis their loanees. The consumer status of the loanees was not for consideration before mem. A consumer is defined under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) vide Section 2 and a loanee cannot be said to have hired the services of the financial institution. In the instant case, the BSFC was given the responsibility for releasing the subsidy as sanctioned by the State Level Committee. In view of the default made by the complainant in paying the loan as per the agreement, the B.S.F.C. cannot be faulted for not releasing further sums of money. They had already disbursed a sum of Rs. 13.50 lacs against a total of 14.50 lacscovered by the two agreements entered with the complaina