By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The complainant was working in abroad for the last 11 years and he came back in the month of March 2017. Since there was no job for his livelihood, he
-2-
decided to start oil and flour mill unit at Kamblakkad. The purpose of the proposed oil mill is to extract oil from coconut purchased from outside by drying the coconut in artificial drying unit and to sell the oil in the open market. The purpose of the proposed flour mill is to pound all kinds of grains and cereals and to sell the flour in market. Therefore he obtained possession of building site on rent from one Kurikkalmadathil Soopy Haji as per an agreement dated 04.06.2016 by paying an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as monthly rent. Thereafter, he submitted a Mudra loan application before the Manager of the SBI, Kamblakkad branch. The Manager of SBI, Kamblakkad returned the application with an advice to submit a fresh loan application to the opposite party bank since, the proposed business unit situates within the limit of opposite party bank. Accordingly, the complainant has submitted the loan application before the opposite party bank to start the mill in the name and style M/s. Edappal Oil and Flour Mill. As per the direction from the bank, the complainant submitted additional documents and made some alterations after the visit of the bank officials. In the meantime, since the loan processing is delayed due to the above said reasons, the complainant cancelled the rent agreement and entered into a lease agreement with same building owner. To pay the advance amount, he has
-3-
taken a loan from KSFE Panmaram branch to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant expected that the opposite party shall sanction the loan. But, the opposite party rejected complainant’s application in the month of March 2017 on the ground that the project is not viable and that the complainant has no experience in conducting the proposed business. The act of opposite party is unsustainable and unjustifiable. The opposite party has caused inordinate delay in processing the application and rejected it without any valid reasons. Therefore the complainant incurred unwanted expenses. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite party. The complainant preferred a complaint before the Regional Manager and as per his suggestion, again he submitted a new loan application. The opposite party has rejected said application also on a new ground that the complainant’s credit score is not satisfactory. The complainant had obtained a vehicle loan and a commercial loan for the purpose of the proposed business. These loans were obtained subsequently to the loan application submitted before the Opposite Party. Since, Opposite Party caused delay in processing the application, both the loan obtained by complainant were fallen due. Therefore the name of the Complainant was put in the Cibil list and that was only due to the delayed processing of loan by
-4-
opposite party. So the complainant is unable to approach any other bank for loan which is happened only because of the deficiency of service of opposite party. Hence this complaint to get Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the physical, mental and economical agony due to the act of opposite party, to direct the opposite party to pay off all the loan liability of both the vehicle and loan taken from the KSFE and to get cost.
3. The opposite party filed version contenting as follows:-
The opposite party admitted that the complainant has submitted Mudra loan application twice. They denied that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite party. They rejected the loan application of the complainant for valid grounds. After inspection, it is found that the premises where the unit to be carried out is found to be inadequate. Roofing appears to be fragile and the shed itself is not in a satisfactory condition. It does not appear to be viable to conduct business in such a location. It is also found that the complainant have no past experience in the field of proposed business. Considering all the above facts, the bank has rejected the loan application by informing the complainant by a letter dated 23.11.2016. Thereafter the
-5-
complainant submitted a letter for rectification and regional office of opposite party returned the application for the same reasons and it was informed to the complainant also. The complainant has given another Mudra loan application on 27.03.2017. He has presented the second application by suppressing the materials in the loan application about his pending loans. He has not filled up the liability column in the form even if, he has availed loan from KSFE and the same is in default. Subsequently on verification of Cibil, he has availed another loan from KSFE and repayment of the same was not satisfactory. His Cibil score came into 536 only. One of the pre-condition for sanctioning the Mudra loan is clear Cibil report and therefore the opposite party rejected the loan application of the complainant and informed the same to the complainant by letter dated 24.04.2017. The bank has every right to reject the loan on considering different aspects. There was no assurance from the opposite party that they will sanction the loan. There is no delay in processing the loan application. The opposite party denied the allegation in the complainant that the Regional Manager of the opposite party has suggested to submit a fresh application. They have also denied that due the delay in processing the loan application, the complainant cancelled the earlier agreement and executed fresh lease agreement and for that
-6-
purpose he availed loan for Rs.2,50,000/- from KSFE. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Section 2(1) (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act provides that a person claiming himself as a consumer should satisfy that he should have consideration. The purpose of the proposed loan of the Complainant is for commercial purpose. Therefore as per the Act, Complainant doses not come under the definition of consumer. Mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot said to be deficiency of service as defined in Section2(1)(g) of the Act. There is no cause of action for the complaint. Bank has not received any amount from the complainant. So the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant intended to start the business not for his livelihood, but as a commercial purpose. So, he is not a consumer as per the Act.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?.
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade
practice from the part of opposite party. If so, whether the
complainant is entitled to get anything as claimed?
-7-
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1, Ext. A1 to A7, Ext.B1 to B3. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant’s specific case is that he has presented Mudra loan application twice before the opposite party bank and they rejected those applications without any valid reasons. His grievance is that Opposite party unnecessarily delayed the processing of the loan. The opposite party admitted the presentation of those loan applications by complainant. But, they denied that they have rejected those applications without any valid reasons and they caused much delay in processing the applications.
7. Even though, the opposite party denied all the allegations put forth against them by the complainant, they specifically contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and therefore this complaint is not maintainable. Even though these points were considered by this Forum in I.A.382/2017 as preliminary points, Forum by its Order dated 13.11.2017 opined that all these matters are to be considered only in evidence.
-8-
8. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines who is a consumer. Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act provided that a consumer is a person who heirs 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. Section further provided that a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose is not a consumer.
9. First upon, the Opposite Party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per the above definition because, he has not availed any services. They contended that the complainant has only presented Mudra loan applications before the Opposite Prty bank and since the bank has not allowed those applications, it cannot be said that Complainant availed any service. The counsel appearing for the Opposite Party contended that the Complainant will come under the purview of the definition of consumer only if, his application was allowed by the opposite party bank and due to some act of the bank, he faced any difficulty in their service. Admittedly the complainant has only presented Mudra loan applications before the bank. It does not mean that he availed services from opposite party. It can be said that complainant attempted or started work to avail
-9-
service from the bank. As argued by the counsel for the Opposite Party, Complainant never availed a service from the Opposite party because, his application to get a service from the Opposite Party itself has been rejected by the bank. Therefore according to our opinion, the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint as a consumer as defined in the Act. The next contention taken by the counsel for the Opposite Party is that here absolutely there is no consideration from the complainant to the bank. It is evident that the Complainant has presented the applications free of cost and the bank has considered his application free of cost. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has not given any fees for processing. The Counsel appearing for the Complainant contented that the Complainant will pay the interest to the bank if, he obtained loan. According to her, this will be the consideration. But, since the Complainant never availed any service from the bank, question of passing consideration does not arised here.
10. The next argument from the Counsel for the Opposite Party is that the Complainant attempted to avail service for commercial purpose. As per Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act, a person who avails a service for any commercial purpose is
-10-
not a Consumer. Even though the Complainant has explained in the complaint that he intended to start the business unit for his livelihood, when he examined as PW1, he admitted that he intented to start a commercial unit. The complaint of the complainant would go to show that the purpose of his mill is to sell the oil and flour in open market. So his intention to start the oil and flour mill was not to extract oil from the coconut brought by the people and not to pound grains and cereals brought by the people in order to get income for his livelihood. His intention was to extract oil from the coconut purchased from outside and to pound grains and cereals for the purpose of selling oil and flour in the market. So definitely, the purpose of the Complainant is a commercial purpose. So if we consider all aspects, it can be seen that the complainant is not a consumer. Thus, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence the point No.1 is found against the complaint.
11. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, this point does not arise for consideration.
-11-
12. Point No.3:- Since, point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of January 2020.
Date of Filing: 15.07.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Dharma Rathnan. Manager, Kottakkal, Brain Neuro Clinic.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Narayana Pillai. P. Chief Manager, SBI, Kainatty.
-12-
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Rejection Letter. Dt:14.03.2017.
A2. Copy of Loan Rejection Letter. Dt:24.04.2017.
A3. Copy of Letter. Dt:18.02.2017.
A4. Copy of Letter. Dt:02.12.2016.
A5. Copy of Letter. Dt:27.12.2016.
A6. Copy of Rent Agreement. Dt:04.06.2016.
A7. Copy of Lease Agreement. Dt:04.10.2016.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Letter. Dt:25.11.2016.
B2. Letter. Dt:13.04.2017.
B3. Copy of Loan Rejection Letter. Dt:24.04.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
