The court emphasized the importance of judicial propriety and highlighted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act and the interest subsidy scheme's coverage under it.

Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Member—This is an appeal arising from the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh. It appears that the respondent approached the appellant Bank for facilities sometime, on or about 25th February, 1989 for the first time and got the facilities sanctioned. At the time of approaching the Bank for facilities and opening the Account, no disclosure was made of the fact that the appellant was one of the 1984 riot victim. It was a commercial loan and overdraft facilities were sanctioned on the terms and conditions contained in the sanction letter of the Bank. In the meantime, in the year 1992 the Reserve Bank of India had come out with a scheme of Grant of Interest Subsidy by Nationalised Banks to the 1984 riots victims. This benefit was available, provided the applicants fulfilled certain conditions and not otherwise. Under the said scheme, the lending Banks had to grant that benefit of the said subsidy to the parties who were covered by the term “Deserving Case” as defined under the said Scheme. Such subsidy was not to be granted by the Reserve Bank of India. Under that scheme, every party was required to submit an application and the scheme expired on 31st March, 1994. Incidentally on that very date i.e., the last date, the respondents made an application claiming to be a riot victim and asking for interest subsidy under the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme meant for November, 1984 riot victims.

Some of the salient features of the said scheme are :

“The term ‘Deserving Case’ is defined as under :

(f) ‘Deserving case’ means eligible loans granted to a borrower who in the opinion of the Authority which has sanctioned the loan does not have, on the effective date, capacity to pay interest at the rates prescribed by instructions/interest rate directives on advances issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard.”

Under that scheme, it was further provided that the Authority which had sanctioned the loan, had the power to determine the ‘deserving cases’ for interest relief and the Branch where the accounts are being operated shall provide the relief in the ‘deserving cases’ thus determined. In this case the interest subsidy was initially sanctioned, but lateron when the balance sheets were furnished it transpired from perusal thereof that the respondent was not eligible for such benefit as they did not fall within the definition of the term “deserving case”, because right from the year 1989 upto 1992 when the scheme was introduced, it had been showing profits. The Head Office of the appellant as also RBI on an examination of facts and circumstances found the respondent to be not a “deserving case”. The matter was taken up with the Banking Ombudsman who also came to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to the interest subsidy under the said scheme as it was not a ‘deserving case’. The question that the appellant having recommended the respondent’s case and having sanctioned the necessary interest subsidy could not at a later date withdraw that benefit on a review without notice to the appellant. Counsel submitted that certain liabilities such as bank charges etc. had not been taken into the balance sheets. If that had been done the balance sheet would have reflected loss.

2. It is interesting to note that long before the filing of the present complaint, the Bank had instituted a suit against the present respondent/complainant for recovery of Rs. 93,15,587.67 which was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur since 1994, while the complaint was filed under the Consumer Protection Act only in 1997 even though the complainant had taken all the pleas which are the basis of present complaint, in defence of that suit of the Bank. The said Tribunal is ceased of the case and the complainant who has already raised a plea in defence to show that he was eligible for the benefit of the scheme and that the balance sheets did not relect the correc