Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Amit Karjatkar-Advocate for the complainant.
Heard. In the instant case, since the sanctioned loan for construction of new building for Dental College is not released by ICICI Bank, this consumer complaint is filed. At the first instance, it could be seen that complainant who is a Public Trust wanted to start a Dental College and sought permission from the Charity Commissioner to raise the loan of `300 million for that purpose. Initially, letter of sanction of loan subject to further conditions was given by the ICICI Bank on 30/6/2008. Thereafter on 12/03/2010, it was further communicated to the complainant that due to non compliance of pre-disbursement conditions by the complainant, the bank is not in a position to disburse the term loan sanctioned and non-availment of term loan facility was confirmed by the said letter with the complainant. Deficiency in service is alleged for non disbursement of loan by the bank.
Sanction and disbursement of loan is subject to contract between the parties. If certain conditions as per requirement which are sine quo non for disbursement of sanctioned loan are not satisfied and the fact is brought to the notice of the complainant; no service deficiency on that count can be alleged by the complainant against the bank and, thus, it cannot be a consumer dispute.
Further, looking to the quantum of loan, the activity for which it is raised, it is certainly for the commercial purpose because the College is not run on charity basis but with capitation fees and allied issues by private institution. Education is taken as an Industry in that sense. Therefore, any attempt to raise loan for the said purpose is also a commercial purpose. Hence, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Economic Transport Organisation v/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and another, 2010 CTJ 361 (SC) (CP); the services being hired for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer and the present dispute will not be a consumer dispute.
Another hurdle against the complainant is description of the opponent against whom complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service. As aforesaid it is the ICICI Bank Ltd. against whom, at the most, the deficiency of service could be alleged. Said bank is not a party before us. Chief Manager of the said bank is one of the officials of the said bank and is a separate and distinct juridic person as per provisions of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He is not the service provider.
For the reasons stated above, we find the complaint devoid of any substance and hence the order:-
ORDER
Complaint is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 1st July, 2011.
