[A/19/447]

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

APPEAL NO.A/19/447

(Arising out of order dated 06/08/2016 passed in Complaint No.536 of 2016

by District Commission, Pune)

ORASONE PHARMACEUTICALS

PVT.LTD.,

Through its directors

1) Sou Nirmala Dilip Bagad,

R/at Flat No.1, B-Wing,

Shridatta Palace Society,

Wadgaon Bk., Pune 411 041.

....... Appellant(s)

Versus

1) BRANCH MANAGER,

INDIAN BANK,

R/at S.No.55, H. No.5 + 1/1/1,

Wasundhara Valay, Wadgaon Bk.,

Pune 411 041.

2) ZONAL MANAGER,

INDIAN BANK ZONAL OFFICE,

3^rd Floor, Progress House,

S.No.54, Pune Mumbai Road,

ShivajiNagar, Pune 411 005.

3) BANKING OMBUDSMAN,(DELETED)

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,

Bhaykhala Office Building, 4^th Floor,

Opp. Mumbai Central Railway Station,

Bhaykhala, Mumbai 400 008.

4) HON.FINANCE MINISTER,(DELETED)

[A/19/447]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi 110 001.

5) HON.PRIME MINISTER,(DELETED)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

South Block, Raisina Hill,

New Delhi 110 011.

………Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Mr.D.R. Shirasao – In-charge President

Dr.S.K. Kakade – Member

For the Appellant

:Mr.DilipBagad,Authorized Representative.

For the Respondent : None.

ORDER

Per Dr. S.K. Kakade, Hon’ble Member

1. This is an appeal filed by the aggrieved appellant-original

complainant, who is private limited company by itself, through its

woman Director Mrs. Nirmala Bagad. This appeal is against the

judgment and order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Pune, in complaint no. CC/2016/ 536, which dismissed the

complaint stating that it is frivolous complaint, and the complainant is

not “Consumer”.

2. Brief Facts of this case are as follows,

The appellant, original complainant is Orasone Pharmaceuticals Private

Limited from Vadgaon (Budruk), Pune, through its woman director and

the opponents are Indian Bank and its officers from Pune as well as

Mumbai. This complaint no. CC/ 2016/ 536 was filed before learned

[A/19/447]

District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Pune, by the woman director of

Orasone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited on 9^th June 2016, alleging

deficiency in service by Indian Bank, opposite party, who declined to

sanction loan under the Prime Minister’s Scheme for Employment

Generation 2014-17. As per complainant’s allegations, the Indian Bank-

Branch Vadgaon (Budruk), Pune sanctioned only Rs.1 Lakh under

different heading other than the one for which loan was applied for.

Additionally, the bank also confiscated the gold ornaments of the

complainant-director towards non-payment of gold loan availed by

complainant. The complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party

bank to sanction the loan and sought compensation on various heads.

Heard the power of attorney holder for the complainant at length. We did

not get opportunity to hear the opposite party as none appeared on the

behalf of opposite party, despite serving notice on the opponents.

3.We have gone through the documents on record – Appeal memo, and

written notes of arguments by complainant and the case laws

submitted by the complainant. Considering the rival contentions and

submissions made before us, considering record and scope of the

appeal, following points arise for our determination and our findings

thereon are noted against them for the reasons given below:

POINTS:

Sr.No.

Point

Findings

Whether the appellant has proved that he is

consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act

1986? Yes

2. Whether the appellant, original complainant Yes

[A/19/447]

proved that there was deficiency in service/unfair

trade practice by the respondent- original opposite

party?

3. Whether the order of learned District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum is just, legal, and

correct?

No

4. Whether the appellant, original complainant is

entitled for compensation?

Yes

5. What Order?

As per the final

order

REASONS:

4.As to POINT No.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document