Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—Complainant Sree Anant Grameena Bank, a Bank created under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI), which has also been incorporated under a Central Statue.

2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant invested in all Rs. 12 crores between July, 1998 and December 1998 in a Scheme floated by the opposite party in the form of Redeemable Non-convertible Bonds, issued by the opposite party. They were payable by a certain date but the complaint is, that, firstly, the maturity amount was paid after some delay and secondly the interest was never paid as per the terms of the Scheme. It is also admitted by the complainant that at a later stage when interest was offered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant @ 6% per annum, they did not accept this.

3. When after protracted correspondence and discussions the issue was not getting resolved this complaint has been filed mainly on two grounds, i.e., delay in paying the maturity amount of which only principal was paid with considerable delay and secondly, non-payment of interest on the matured amount as also non-payment of interest for delayed payment. It is in these circumstances that a complaint has been filed making the following prayers:

“(a) Direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Bank interest for the delayed period in payment of the Redeemable Non-Convertible Bonds for Rs. 12 crores at 10% amounting to Rs. 1,00,55,351/- upto 28.2.2005.

(b) Direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Bank interest on the said sum of Rs. 1,00,55,351/- at 10% per annum compounded quarterly from 1.3.2005 till the payment.

(c) Award such compensation as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award such costs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) Pass any other orders or directions, as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant in view of the amendment brought into effect from 15th March, 2003, after this amendment, the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) reads as follows:

‘(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];”

Explanation—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

5. The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the Regional Rural Banks were created under a Central Statute and the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” amended from time to time clearly state that the purpose of these links is to help the small farmers and other small entrepreneurs in meeting their financial requirements. In view of the objectives their activities cannot be termed as commercial, thus, ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.

6. We have very carefully gone through the Act and also the objectives and reasons. There is no disputing the fact that the setting up Regional Rural Banks was “for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs, and for matte