Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Subash Mahtab, President In-charge and Basanti Devi, Member
MITTAL SPICE AND FOOD PRODUCTS - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. - Respondents
Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2007
Decided on : 08-04-2008
M/s. G.P. Dutta and Assoc., Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s. S.P. Mohanty and Associates., Advocate, M/s. S.B. Panda and Associates., Advocate, M/s. A.K. Mishra and Associates., Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is determined by the purpose of the loan transactions, and the court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the Act in this context.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Loan Dispute - Section 17(l)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [17(l)(a)(i)] - The court discussed the complainant's claim under Section 17(l)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief against the opposite parties for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The court analyzed the complainant's status as a consumer, the loan transactions, and the actions of the opposite parties, ultimately dismissing the case against the opposite parties.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought relief under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and arbitrary actions by the opposite parties. The complainant's spices manufacturing unit faced regulatory challenges and financial difficulties, leading to a dispute over loan repayment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the loan transactions were for commercial purposes rather than self-employment livelihood. Additionally, the court determined that the opposite parties did not cause mental torture or financial loss to the complainant, ultimately dismissing the case against them.
Issues: The key issues involved determining the complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and assessing whether the opposite parties were responsible for the complainant's alleged financial difficulties and mental anguish.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the complainant's loan transactions were for commercial purposes, rendering the complainant ineligible for relief under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the court concluded that the opposite parties did not engage in unfair trade practices or cause deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case against the opposite parties, ruling that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and that the opposite parties did not engage in unfair trade practices or cause deficiency in service.
ORDER
Mrs. Basanti Devi, Member - The complainant has filed this case under Section 17(l)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short, the C.P. Act praying to direct the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned above to waive the interest on the loan amount of the complainant and to allow him to repay the principal loan amount on phasement basis and to pay him compensation Rs. 21,00,000 or in the alternative to direct opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to allot a suitable land to run the unit and to advance some financial assistance to enable him for repayment of loan phase-wise. Complainant has brought this complaint against all the opposite parties alleging gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and arbitrary action of the opposite parties due to which he has been ruined.
2. The case of the complainant as per the complaint petition in brief is that complainant's spices manufacturing unit has been provisionally registered SSI unit bearing registration No. 15/05/07460 dated 19.5.2001. Opposite party No. 4-GM, DIC vide letter No. 650 dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure-1) granted certificate to the effect that the complainant's unit is a non-polluting unit. Complainant has also used modernized Micro-Pulverser fitted with dust collecting machine and motor, for which there would be no pollution. The Executive Officer, Municipality Dhenkanal, issued no objection certificate in respect to said unit and the Chief Medical Officer, Dhenkanal issued Food Licence. After verification of the unit, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs. 12.09 lakh in respect to the unit. When complainant was running the unit, vide letter No. 23020 dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure-2), opposite party No. 3 directed complainant to shift the unit to a suitable site and to apply for consent to establish the unit at the new sight. Though complainant appealed to the Member Secretary, Orissa Pollution Control Board, Bhubaneswar (copies of appeal memo filed) yet it has not been disposed of. But vide letter dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure-4), the opposite party No. 3 directed complainant to stop running the unit and advised to apply for fresh consent to run the unit at another site after shifting the unit to such other suitable site. Immediately complainant stopped running the unit and could not shift the unit to a suitable place and wrote opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 5.7.2005 (Annexure-5) to allot him a suitable place and to sanction further finance for the unit. But instead of showing complainant a favour in view of said letter dated 5.7.2005, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 issued him as well as his wife Nirmala Mittal who stands as a guarantor for the complainant for repayment of loan. Complainant vide his letter dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure-6) explained opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the reason for which he could not repay the loan though in the meantime he has paid Rs. 5 lakh towards loan at the same time requesting them to find out a site for the unit and to help him financially. But vide letter dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure-7), opposite party No. 1 asked complainant to repay the loan otherwise which he will take lawful action since question of further financial help does not arise the unit having stopped working since long. Complainant deposited with opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, Rs. 1 (one) lakh on 5.2.2007 promising to deposit Rs. 1 (one) lakh vide receipt (Annexure-8) on 12.2.2007. Complainant states that in spite of clearance given by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 to run the unit, as unreasonably, opposite party No. 3 directed to stop running the unit, complainant sustained huge loss in manufacturing spices. Due to this reason when complainant is not in a position to repay the loan to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have taken arbitrary coercive action against him thereby they have caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, complainant filed the CD case claiming Rs. 10,00,000 towards compensati
