Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/762

NARMADA JHABUA GRAMIN BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURI SHANKAR - Opp.Party(s)

SH.V.K.SAXENA

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 23.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.13/2016 by District Commission, Rajgarh)

 

NARMADA JHABUA GRAMIN BANK,

BRANCH BHYANA, SARANGPUR, RAJGARH.                                                …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

GAURISHANKAR & ANOTHER.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                        :      MEMBER 

                              

                                      O R D E R

19.07.2022

 

            Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents though served.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) has been filed by the opposite party/appellant challenging the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.13/2016 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondents holding that the appellant has committed deficiency in service and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-. In addition, Rs.500/- towards costs and Rs.500/- towards advocate fees has also been awarded and if the awarded amount is not paid within a period of two months, the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a from the date of order till payment.  

-2-

2.                Briefly stated that the respondents/complainants had submitted an application to the appellant/opposite party which is a co-operative bank for sanction of loan for developing Orange Orchard on his land. The appellant bank made certain querries and thereafter on examination of the papers, having not found feasible to sanction the loan to the respondents refused to sanction the same. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents had filed complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the appellant bank seeking direction for sanction of loan amount and compensation.

3.                The District Commission after considering the evidence led by the parties partly allowed the complaint and granted the relief as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4.                Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission while passing the impugned order failed to consider the plea taken by the appellant/opposite party to the effect that the respondents are not covered under the term ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act and proceeded to decide the complaint by further overlooking the fact that the respondents had failed to make any averment that loan of Rs.19,50,000/- was applied by them for starting business for earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.  He also argued that

-3-

mere submission of application for sanction of loan will not ipso facto bring the respondents within the purview of the term ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act. According to him whether to sanction the loan or not to sanction is prerogative of the appellant financial institution and one cannot compel it to sanction the same. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the decision of this Commission in First Appeal No.403/2014 (Mohd. Kaleem Vs Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank) decided on 10.01.2019.

5.                We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6.                On going through the complaint we find that the respondents in their complaint nowhere made any averment to the effect that the loan which was applied by them was for starting their business of Organge Orchard for earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. In our considered view, in the absence of said pleading and when this absence in pleading was categorically pointed out by the appellant in its reply, it was incumbent upon the District Commission to have considered as to whether the complaint was maintainable or not. Thus having regard to the fact that the complainants having failed to make averment to the effect that the loan was applied by them for their business was for earning their livelihood by means of self employment, the complaint was not maintainable.

 

-4-

7.                So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that whether to sanction and disburse loan to an applicant or not

is prerogative of the appellant financial institution and one cannot compel it for sanction of loan, the same deserves to be accepted as in our considered view it is always open for the financial institution to examine as to whether it would be feasible to sanction the loan keeping in view the possibility of recovery of the same and therefore non sanction of loan cannot be said to be a deficiency in service.

8.                Having regard to the aforesaid, since the impugned order is passed by the District Commission ignoring the fact that the respondents are not covered under the term ‘consumer’ and also not considering the fact that the respondents had no indefeasible right to get loan sanctioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same therefore deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

9.                The appeal stands allowed.

 

          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)             (S. S. Bansal)   

                         President                                  Member