Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member
By a separate order passed in MA/11/94, the delay in filing appeal stands condoned. Admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard Adv. Ashutosh Marathe on behalf of the Appellant/original Complainant and Adv. M. G. Nadkarni on behalf of the Respondent/original Opponent. Perused the record including the correspondence relied upon by the parties.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/10/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.417 of 2009, Priyadarshini Polysaks Ltd. Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India. The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) preferred this appeal.
[3] For its business, the Complainant borrowed a loan from the State Bank of India, Udyam Nagar Industrial Estate Branch, Kolhapur. It is the grievance of the Complainant that instead of charging interest @ 8.75% p.a., as agreed, the Respondent/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) charged interest @ 9.5% p.a. Such enhanced rate was mentioned while completing the documentation. In this background, it is alleged that the Bank had indulged into ‘unfair trade practice’. It is also a grievance made by the Complainant that while sanctioning the loan the Bank has charged an amount of `6,72,000/- towards ‘processing fees’. Therefore, a consumer complaint was filed claiming refund of the amount debited as processing fees together with interest thereon @ 18% p.a., amounting to `7,00,000/-, an amount of `20,000/- towards reimbursement of the expenses incurred for collecting the necessary documents, an amount of `3,00,000/- by way of compensation towards mental torture and expenses incurred, an amount of `25,000/- towards notice expenses and lastly, an amount of `10,000/- towards lawyer’s fees. The Forum holding that the dispute would not be a ‘consumer dispute’ since the alleged services was hired for ‘commercial purpose’, dismissed the consumer complaint.
[4] According to the Complainant himself, at the time of completing documentation, rate of interest was mentioned at the enhanced rate i.e. 9.5% p.a. Once the Complainant had signed and executed those documents, those documents are binding upon him and later on he cannot make a grievance in respect of such documents. Ultimately, it is a contractual liability which is binding upon the Complainant.
[5] As per as charging of processing fee is concerned, nothing could be shown by the Complainant to prove that it was improperly charged. Same has been charged as per the rules of the Bank and it necessarily depends upon total loan sanctioned. The total loan sanctioned is of `5.25 Crores for the business. Such fee is payable as soon as loan is sanctioned and, therefore, utilization of the loan amount is immaterial. Under the circumstances, there cannot be any ‘deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ which could be alleged against the Bank.
[6] Admittedly, the service of the Bank (it at all it is a ‘service’) was hired for borrowing a loan for business that is for earning profit. Therefore, it is a ‘commercial purpose’ and service being hired for ‘commercial purpose’, certainly, would not fall within the ambit of the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) since the Complainant in that case would not be a ‘consumer’. Useful reference on the point can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ~ 2010-CTJ-361-(SC)-(CP).
[7] Another aspect which needs consideration is that admittedly the alleged ‘service provider’ or the organization which alleged indulged into ‘unfair trade practice’ is the State Bank of India. Said Bank is not a party before the Forum or even in this appeal. Branch Manager of a particular branch of the State Bank of India is a separate, independent and distinct juridic person within the meaning of Section-2(1)(m) of the Act and he is, certainly, distinguishable than his own organization, namely – State Bank of India. For this reason also ultimate dismissal of the consumer complaint by the Forum cannot be faulted with.
For the reasons stated above, we find appeal is devoid of any substance and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 8th December, 2011
