1. This complaint is filed by a Private Limited Company namely Heliwal Krishi Shitgriha against the officers of the Central Bank of India.
2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that the complainant is a small scale industry and it has the business of preservation of agricultural produce by using cold storage. The Opposite Parties (for short OP) Nos.1 to 4 are the authorities of Central Bank of India. The complainant wanted to install its unit at Nagpur and hence it was in need of huge financial assistance. Therefore it submitted proposal to the OP No.3 on 28/5/2000 for term loan. The OP No.3 sanctioned loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 8/7/2000 with fixed rate of interest of 13% p.a. with quarterly rests. However, the OP No.3 released only Rs.1,35,00,000/- as against the sanctioned loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The rules of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short NABARD) are applicable to the complainant as it is a small scale industry. The OP Bank did not apply the interest as per the rules and regulations of the NABARD, but the Ops applied excessive rate of interest of 13% p.a. with monthly rests. Moreover, though demanded, no details were given to the complainant as to how such interest was applied. There were also recorded reverse entries of Rs.95284/- and Rs.9062/-. The OP Bank also put restriction on the complainant not to obtain cash credit limit from any other bank which caused loss of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant. Moreover, the OP Bank compelled the complainant to execute the loan agreement at Raipur though he had requested to execute the same at Nagpur so as to save stamp duty and, therefore, complainant had to pay unnecessarily Rs.1,01,236/- on stamp duty. Moreover, the Ops unlawfully recovered submission and account maintenance charges of Rs.50000/- from complainant. The OP Bank also unlawfully recovered Rs.6888/- towards insurance policy, though the complainant had submitted to the bank insurance policy amounting to Rs.52,070/-. Moreover, though the complainant had requested the OP Bank to close the account in the month of May,2006, it closed the same on 24/11/2006 and hence he was required to pay extra interest during that period amounting to Rs.30000/-. The mortgage papers were also issued to complainant after a long period of 7 months. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complainant claimed from Ops. total compensation of Rs.64,57,744/- on various counts specified in the complaint with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. besides cost of Rs.10000/-. He also prayed for direction to the Ops. to recalculate the loan account with actual rate of interest according to the rules and regulations of the agreement dated 8/7/2000 and according to the directions of the NABARD.
3. The OP, resisted the complaint by filing written version. Ops raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the complaint They submitted that the question involves breach of contract, which can be agitated before the Civil Court only. They also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act and, therefore, the complaint is liable o be dismissed.
Their case, in brief is that the NABARD approved total outlay of the project of Rs.223.32 lacs against Rs.245 lacs, and, therefore, they sanctioned the revised term loan of Rs.128.32 lacs including subsidy etc. and the rate of interest was fixed at 13.5% p.a.subject to revision of the interest as per guidelines of RBI and terms and conditions of sanction letter. The interest is also charged as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter and rules and regulations of NABARD and also as per guidelines of RBI. The reverse entries are reflected in the account statement. The complainant himself has written letter on 29/3/2001 to the OP 3 that it does not require cash credit limit. The loan was sanctioned by OP 3 at Raipur as per sanction letter issued by OP 1 & 2. The terms and conditions were accepted by the complainant and hence there was no question of executing the documents at Nagpur. The stamp duty was required to be paid as per laws of the State. The supervision charges and account maintenance charges are to be paid by the complainant only and not by the OP Bank. It is mandatory for the bank as per terms and conditions, to obtain insurance policy when the bank is granting credit facility and accordingly, the Ops had intimated the complainant about obtaining insurance policy by debiting Rs.6888/. and the complainant obtained the policy as per his own sweet will. The bank had to obtain additional insurance policy to cover entire exposure. On 24/11/2006, the complainant had sent letter to OP 3 to close the account by making balance payment of Rs.754287/- and accordingly he paid the said amount and therefore, the account was closed on 24/11/2006. On 16/12/2006, the complainant had sent a letter to the OP bank to release the documents of title of property, which were held as mortgage for granting credit facility by the Bank to Heliwal Poly Packs. Pvt.Ltd. of Raipur. The said loan was repaid and, therefore, the documents were released by the bank. Therefore, the OP Bank denied the allegations of deficiency in service and submitted that complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.5 lacs.
4. The complainant filed copies of loan account and letter correspondence made in between it and the OP Bank. The complainant also filed rejoinder and also evidence affidavit of its witness Sanjay Chironjilal Heliwal in support of the complaint.
5. The learned advocates of both the parties also filed their written notes of arguments. We have also heard learned advocate of the complainant. However, learned advocate of the OP 1 to 4 failed to appear at the time of final hearing and hence he could not be heard.
6. We have perused the complaint, written version of Ops 1 to 4 filed on affidavit, rejoinder and affidavit filed by the complainant, documents and the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.
7. Following issues arise for our consideration. We also record our finding thereon, for the reasons to follow.
ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer
as defined U/s 2(1)(d) (ii)of the C.P.Act.
1986 ? No
2. What order ? As per final order below
8. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a consumer. She relied upon the observations made in the following cases..
“Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. B.N.Raman III (2006) CPJ (SC) . In that case the complainant had alleged that he kept money in the fixed deposit with the OP for six years and after laps of that time, he again requested the OP to reinvest the entire amount for another six years. However, the OP alleged that the amount has been prematurely withdrawn by the complainant and hence there was no question of reinvestment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the customers in such a case are the consumers within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act.”
9. The learned advocate of the Opposite Parties in their written notes of arguments submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act,1986. He cited one decision in his written notes of arguments which is not produced by him.
10. The definition of “Consumer” is given Under Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act. Said section interalia provides that a person who avails services for commercial purpose is not a consumer under the definition of Consumer. Explanation to the said section shows that the commercial purpose does not include the services availed by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Thus, it is crystal clear from the plain reading of the definition of Consumer that if services are availed purely for commercial purpose, then the person availing such services is not a consumer. In the instant case, admittedly, the complainant availed service of the Ops purely for the commercial purpose as stated in so many words in the complaint and reproduced above. The complainant is a private limited company and it does business of preservation of agriculture produce by using cold storage. The OP No.3 sanctioned huge loan of Rs.150 lacs to be repaid with interest specified in the sanction letter. This shows that the business of the complainant is of large scale and it can be said that the said services were availed only for the purpose of earning profit by the complainant.
11. It is not alleged by the complainant that the said services were availed for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment so as to bring his case within within the ambit of definition of consumer given as above in Sec.2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act. On the contrary it is also clear that there is no question of availing services exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment since the complainant is an industry and it is running business as above on large scale to earn large profit. Therefore, we are of the view that as the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as given under Sec.2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, the complaint filed by it is not maintainable before this Commission. The aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned advocate of the complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid case, relied upon by the learned advocate of the complainant, no such huge loan was obtained by the complainant for earning huge profit. In that case, only some amount was deposited by the complainant for certain fixed period and it was then to be reinvested after the laps of the fixed period but the Bank refused to reinvest it on the ground that the complainant prematurely withdrawn the said amount. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from that of the said case. Therefore, the complainant can not take assistance of the decision given in that case.
12. We, therefore, hold that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case since the complaint is not maintainable. Hence the aforesaid issue No.1 is decided in the negative and the complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
- The complaint stands dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
- Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
