Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/473/2012

M/s Surya Packers - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                          Complaint No. 473 of 2012

                                                                                                          Date of institution: 15.05.2012       

                                                                                                          Date of decision: 24.10.2016

                                                                                   

M/ Surya Packers, near Nageshwar Dham, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its partner Sh. Surya Veer Singh aged about 28 years.

 

                                    …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala , Sugar Mill Area Branch, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Loan Cell, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
3. State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana through its Regional Manager.
4. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office at Patiala through its Managing Director/Chairman.

                                                                                                                               …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:            None for complainant.

                        Sh. G.L.Sharma, Advocate counsel for OPs.              

 

ORDER

 

1.                        The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant firm approached the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) in the month of December 2011 and applied to get loan facility to the tune of Rs.95,00,000/- i.e. C.C. Limit of Rs.20,00,000/- and terms loan of Rs.75,00,000/- for the business of firm i.e. M/s Surya Packers, Radaur and for this purpose, the complainant firm got opened a Bank Account No.65130113092. After that complainant firm submitted the required documents and after perusal of the documents the Op No.1 Bank assured the complainant that he is capable to get the applied loan facility and forwarded the loan papers to Op No.2 who is loan cell of the Op No.1. After that on the instructions of the official of Op No.2 the complainant first of all got prepared the project report from one Mr. Sanjeev Kamboj, C.A. and paid Rs. 10,000/- on this account to the said C.A. and thereafter complainant taken the land measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas at village Radaur on lease vide lease deed No. 4393 dated 02.12.2011. After taking the land on lease, complainant firm started construction over the land and spent near about Rs. 25,00,000/- on the construction alongwith this complainant firm placed order to purchase machinery and paid an amount near about of Rs. 10,00,000/- to one Sidharatha Machinery Company Azadpur, Delhi, even, thereafter, complainant also got prepared a valuation report from Sh. S.K.Vohra, Engineer and Consultant approved valuer of OP No.2. the complainant also got prepared the legal search report in respect of property from one Sh. Nalin Gupta Advocate. The complainant also obtained necessary NOC from District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar vide memo No. 6031 DTP(Y) NOC dated 15.12.2011. However, when the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and requested them to grant him the applied loan facility but the official of Op No.2 namely Rajender Pal Gandhi, Chief Manager of OP No.2 who told to the complainant that if he wants to get the loan facility then complainant himself have to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to him. In this way, the Ops has wrongly and illegally denied the loan facilities to the complainant whereas complainant has spent huge amount on account of legal report etc. Lastly, prayed that OPs be directed to grant the applied loan facility to the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the complaint is not legally maintainable; there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and respondent Bank; complainant has no right and cannot force the Op Bank to advance him loan as this is a prerogative of the bank to advance loan to someone or not. The security offered by the complainant was not acceptable as per legal opinion given by Sh. G.L. Sharma approved advocate for the Bank. The land offered by the complainant was agriculture land and the Scrutinize and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 was not applicable to that land and there was no change of land use certificate from the competent authority. Even, as per Town and Country Planner, Yamuna Nagar, no construction can be raised within 30 meters of the restricted belt without permission of the competent authority but the complainant has illegally raised construction within 30 meters without their permission and on merit controverted the plea taken by complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents Annexure C-1 to C-30 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs closed their evidence without tendering any documents.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs  and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

 7                     So, prior to considering the case on merits, it is necessary to decide the question “Whether the complainant falls within the ambit of Consumer as has been narrated in the Consumer Protection Act or not?”

8.                      On this point counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the complaint has been filed by M/s Surya Packers claiming to be a “Consumer” is not tenable that the complainant firm falls under the definition of consumer. The term consumer has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986 which reads as under:

                        “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)                    buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)       [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”

9.                     Since the services of the OPs Bank have been availed by the complainant for business/ commercial purposes, its complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) reproduced above. Although the explanation appended to section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act provides that the “commercial purpose” does not include the services availed by the person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. However, the above noted explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood.  Moreover, the complainant firm admitted in its complaint that they applied to get loan facility to the tune of Rs. 95,00,000/- i.e. C.C. Limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- and term loan of Rs. 75,00,000/-  whereas this Forum have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act where the value of goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-. As such the present complaint is not maintainable.

10                    In view of this, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act as well as complaint is not maintainable as per under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act.  

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 24.10.2016.

 

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )          

                                                MEMBER