IMPORTANT POINT
“Loanee” comes within purview of word “consumer”.

B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner .

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant applied for a loan to the Secretary, Orissa Khadi and Village Industries, for purposes of processing of sell of dal/pulses in the year 1996-1997. The loan was sanctioned out of which only part loan was released. The rest of the amount was not released as according to the petitioner, the complainant has failed to observe the terms and conditions. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, whereby a majority judgment by the President and one Member, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that setting up of a mill of pulses is a commercial activity and he will not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer’. But by a minority judgment, one Member allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to release the loan amount within one month, cost of Rs. 500 was also imposed. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was filed by the respondent before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and upheld the minority judgment of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.

3. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. None is present from the first date, on behalf of the respondent, which include Dhenkanal Gramya Bank. Fresh notice was also issued for today’s date on 4.5.2009. This is an old case of the year 2005, hence we go on to pass the order based on material on record as well as after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In this case, sanction of loan is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that loan amount sanctioned by the petitioner was to be released through Dhenkanal Gramya Bank. As per material on record, despite notice they did not appear before the District Forum, hence, they were proceeded ex parte. They were not present before the State Commission or for that matter before us. No material has been brought on record by the petitioner as to what terms in the sanction letter were not complied with by the petitioner. We have carefully gone through the grounds of revision petition. It is not in dispute that the loan was sanctioned by the petitioner as per page 17-18 of the paper-book. The scheme was to be implemented through the Bank in such a situation the bank will be the agent of the petitioner. One of the grounds taken in the revision petition is that the respondent/complainant will not be a consumer. As per, by now well-settled law by this Commission, once a loan is sanctioned then the loanee shall come within the definition of ‘Consumer’. The release of money could be stopped only in case of violation of the terms given in the sanctioned letter. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be stated that nothing has been shown to us by way of any cogent documentary evidence supported by an affidavit of the person concerned, that there was any violation or departure from the terms of the sanction letter.

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference which is as per law, in view of which we find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed.

Revision petition dismissed.

*******