Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. —Appellants
versus
M/s. J.C.M. Poultry Farm —Respondent
First Appeal No. 115 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 24/08/2010 in Complaint No. 1/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 7.6.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Shri Rishi Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri C.B. Gururaj, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant who is not a consumer, he could not have raised consumer complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Banking—Deficiency in service—Loan for development of Poultry farm—Bank failed to release further amount of loan without any justification—State Commission partly allowed complaint and directed opposite party Bank to release balance sanctioned loan alongwith cost of Rs.5,000/-—Complainant firm had approached appellant/opposite party to raise loan for establishing poultry farm business—There is no allegation in complaint that loan was raised with intention of exclusively earning livelihood by way of self-employment—Nor any evidence in this regard has been adduced by respondent/complainant—Services of appellant Bank were availed for commercial purpose—Complainant/respondent is not a consumer and he could not have raised consumer complaint—State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining consumer complaint filed by complainant who is not a consumer—Impugned order set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Karnataka dated 24.8.2010 thereby the State Commission allowed the consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner Bank as under:-
“The complaint is allowed in part.
The OP Bank is directed to release the balance amount to the complainant as per the sanction of loan within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
The complainant on receipt of the said amount shall utilize the same for the purpose of establishing the poultry Farm, for which the loan was sanctioned.
The OP Bank is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards the costs of this proceedings”.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal that respondent raised a consumer complaint dispute by filing a consumer complaint before the State Commission, Karnataka alleging that the respondent is a partnership firm. The respondent firm with a view to develop a poultry farm, approached the petitioner Bank for seeking finance. The opposite party No.1 after processing the loan application of the respondent, agreed to finance a sum of Rs.93,77,000/- to the respondent/complainant against the security of the simple mortgage of land in favour of the Bank. Pursuant to the agreement, first instalment of loan, Rs. 27,97,7777/- was released in favour of the respondent. After the utilisation of the said amount, the complainant/respondent submitted the Utilisation Certificate dated 25.7.2006 issued by Sri S.V. Venugopal, Surveyor and sought for the release of further sum. The petitioner Bank failed to release the further amount of the loan without any justification. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the respondent filed a consumer complaint with the following prayers:-
“WHEREFORE, complainant prays that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to summons the opposite parties and pass order directing them:
1. Directing opposite parties to release the balance of loan amount;
2. Pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day from 27.4.2007 to date on which opposite parties have received the utilization certificate to the date to release the further installments;
3. To direct the opposite parties if not release the remaining loan amount they have not to claim bank the money so far paid as utilization has become ineffective to give return;
4. To direct the opposite parties to grant additional loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and
5. Not to claim any interest with release further installments.And grant such other reliefs to complainants as the Hon’ble court commissioner may feel just in the interest of justice”.
3. The opposite parties i.e. the Bank and its official filed a joint written statement. The OPs admitted that they had sanctioned a loan of Rs.93,77,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant. According to the opposite party, the loan was to be disbursed in four parts depending upon the development and progress of the business of the complainant. It was pleaded by the appellant Bank that in the first phase, loan of Rs.28,13,250/- was released to the complainant and as the complainant failed to submit Utilisation Certificate of the first instalment, the balance instalment was declined to be released. It is contended that under these circumstances, the petitioner Bank has not committed any deficiency in service besides the aforesaid allegations on merits. The petitioner Bank also took the preliminary objection that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, firstly, because the respondent/complainant is not a consumer and secondly that the relief claimed in the complaint being in the nature of specific relief cannot be entertained by a consumer Fora.
4. The learned State Commission on consideration of pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party Bank to release the balance sanctioned loan within two months from the date of receipt of order and the complainant was also directed
