7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. Apropos the controvertial status of the complainant being guarantor qua the opposite party Bank , it may be stated that consumer who hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised and the services as defined in sub clause 2 (i) (o) includes services of any description which is made available to pertinent users for the facility in connection with banking , financing, insurance, , transport supply of electrical or other energy or housing construction. A similar controversy also arose before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Mumbai in case reported as III (2003) CPJ 87 Janaseva Sahkari Bank Ltd. vs. Mrs. Jyotsna Sudhakar Pandhye & Anr. wherein it was held by Hon'ble Maharashtra State Commission by referring Section 2(i)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that advancement of the loan prime activity of the Bank and execution of loan agreement, furnishing of guarantee, part and ancillary to advancement of loan and nature of transaction is certainly a banking business and as such Forum has the jurisdiction..Hence complaint maintainable. Therefore, relying upon the ratio of the said case, we hold that complainant being guarantor also falls within the ambit of "consumer" in the banking business of the opposite party.<br /> 8. With regard to the intricate question of law and facts involved in the present case justifying for its adjudication by the Civil Court, it is appropriate to highlight factual controversy. Complainant alleged in para-2 of the complaint that he stood guarantee on behalf of principle borrower i.e. Sarv Hitkari Educational Society New Delhi in advancement of loan amount of Rs.85,00,000/- by the opposite party Punjab National Bank as collateral security for repayment of the said loan. He served notice upon Bank to know the status of loan and later on came to know vide reply dated 24/4/2007 by opposite party Bank that Bank had rescheduled the repayment of said loan amount and it is now to be repayable by the end of January 2008. Since the Bank has altered terms of loan agreement by rescheduling the repayment of the said loan amount without his consent, he stands discharged from his guarantee liability and claimed return of title deed from it lying with the Bank as collateral security . On the other hand Bank pleaded that complainant cannot be discharged from his guarantee liability under the terms and conditions of guarantee deed dated 31.3.2003 Ex.R1 simply by enlargement of time for rescheduling the repayment of loan amount as the guarantee expressly consented to it and not entitled to claim benfit of legal consequences in terms of the contract and to any of the right conferred upon guarantee by Sections 133, 134, 135, 139 and 141 of Indian Contract Act.<br /> 9. However, later on complainant moved an application dated 5/2/2008 for additional evidence that since the opposite party Bank has already discharged the co-security namely C. L. Kochhar. There were sufficient funds in the account of the borrower and the Bank in collusion with the borrower, rescheduled the account of the borrower without his consent. He further stated that loan was granted by the Bank in the year 2001. The guarantee deed relied upon by the Bank pertains to the year 2003. It appears that Bank has got the same signed in the course of his dealing with the complainant as the complainant was also office bearer of Sarv Hitkari Educational Society. This guarantee deed does not deal with the loan transaction. The complainant had stood guarantee on the terms and conditions settled between the bank and the borrower and the guarantor at the time of releasing of loan in the year 2001. Its terms have been intentionally withheld by the Bank which on the fact of it due to the facts narrated. The agreement of guarantee has also been fabricated . The name of the complainant on the face of guarantee deed has been entered later on , so complainant filed an affidavit by way of additional evidence incorporating above facts. On the other hand opposite party Bank replied that guarantee of the complainant cannot be released till the repayment is made by the borrower to the Bank. It is further stated that there were two loans obtained by the borrower and the loan of Rs.1,65,00,000/- in the year 2001 was granted for which complainant had not stood guarantee and the second loan of Rs.85,00,000/- was granted to the borrower in the year 2003 and the complainant had stood guarantee for the borrower only Thus the complainant had executed only one guarantee deed for the year 2003 only Complainant had not pleaded all these facts in his complaint and as such same cannot be brought on the file by way of additional evidence. The Bank has also filed another guarantee deed of March 2001 in respect of loan amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and other guarantee deed of March 2003 in respect of loan amount to the extent of Rs.85,00,000/- besides loan amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/-. It be thus seen that complainant though admits guarantee deed for the year 2001 but denied execution of any such guarantee deed of the year 2003 with further allegation that that guarantee document for the year 2003 was executed by the Bank in connivance with the borrower and the same was however, got signed from him during the course of his dealing with the Bank . Be that as it may, complainant created complicated questions of law and facts about genuineness of the guarantee deed in question which requires exhaustive and elaborate evidence to be produced by the parties to prove their respective allegations and counter allegations and adjudicate within the domain of Civil Court and not in summary proceedings before Consumer Forum. <br /> However from the analysis of pleadings of the parties and also additional evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant and reply thereof by the opposite party Bank , complicated questions of law and facts have been emerged Opposite party Bank has taken up plea that Sh.C.L. Kochhar was not co-security with the complainant but he was a guarantor independently for the borrower. So the bank was fully competent to re-schedule the account of the borrower without consent of the complainant/guarantor. Complainant alleged that loan was granted by the bank to the borrower in the year 2001 in which he stood guarantor but the guarantee deed relied upon by the opposite party Bank pertains to the year 2003. His signatures on the guarantee deed were procured during the course of his dealings with the Bank as he was also office bearer of the borrower i.e. Sarv Hitkari Educational Society. The Bank has fairly admitted that complainant executed only one guarantee deed for the loan documents of 2003 of the borrower with the opposite party Bank. Agreement of guarantee was fabricated by the Bank in collusion with the borrower. The guarantee deed Ex.R1 pertains to loan in respect of Rs.1,65,00,000/- and also Rs.85,00,000/-. another agreement of guarantee pertaining to the year 2001 has been produced. Be that as it may. Since complicated questions of law and facts are involved based on allegations and counterallegations of the parties pertains to the guarantee deed Ex.R1 in which complainant stood guarantor. It will therefore, be appropriate that these questions required to be adjudicated by exhaustive evidence by both the parties before Civil Court. Reference be also made to the cases reported as 1994 (II) CPJ 456 and also 1998 (II) CPJ 128<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion and without commenting on th merits of the case , we hold that complaint is not maintainable involving complicated questions of law and facts. Complainant is however at liberty to avail of appropriate remedy before Civil Court. However, the period spent in the proceedings before this Forum shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation for filing civil suit, if any. Hence complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A,.K. Sharma )<br /> 6.5.2008 Member President.<br />