Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant candidly states that in view of the decision of this Commission, dated 05.07.2013, in CC No.99 of 2013, wherein it has been held that a complaint alleging deficiency in service in relation to a bank loan for a hotel project would not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short “the Act”) the Complaint giving rise to this Appeal may not be maintainable. He, however, submits that Civil Appeal preferred against the said order is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He prays that hearing in this Appeal may be deferred to await the decision in that Appeal. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. In our view, the Ld. Bench has correctly explained the scope of the expression “Consumer” as defined in the amended Section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act. We are in agreement with the order. In that view of the -3- matter, the Complainant, a body Corporate, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for charging excessive rate of interest @ 14.75% p.a. on the additional term loan of Rs.13.50 Crores, sanctioned for the second phase of the project to raise the capacity of the broilers etc. to Ten Lac, will not be a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as amended. Hence the Complaint by the Appellant under Section 2 (1) (b) (i) of the Act was not maintainable. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. |
