BRANCH MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK vs ANIL KUMAR SINHA.

THIS is an appeal filed against the orders dated 7th May, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Bhojpur at Arrah in Complaint Case No. 66 of 1992.

THE facts of the case in brief are that an Eicher 35 H.P. Tractor, Chasis No. 56810601175, Engine No. 56728201210 was purchased by one Dilaga Rai after obtaining a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from Allahabad Bank, Arrah. THE tractor was purchased from M/s. Pragati Auto Spares, Arrah on 28.7.86 but the purchaser returned the same to the dealers in November, 1986 on account of technical defects in the tractor. THEreafter the loanee informed the bank that the dealers will hence forward return the loan and interest taken by him. THE District Forum have found that the dealer deposited some amount towards the recovery of the bank loan between 4.5.87 and 4.5.89. However an amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited by the dealer on 4.8.90 was put in the suspense account by the Bank. Against this act of the Bank, i.e., depositing the amount in the suspense account, Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, Proprietor of Pragati Auto Spares filed a complaint to the District Forum that the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- made should be adjusted against the loan taken for the purpose of tractor. He further prayed that since the tractor has been returned to the dealer interest on the Bank loan originally taken by Dilaga Rai may be excused. THE District Forum accepted the plea of the complainant and ordered that the sum of Rs. 30000/- deposited on 4.8.90 be adjusted against the loan amount and consequent adjustment should also be made in interest payable on this loan. It was also ordered by the Forum that the insurance charges for the period subsequent to November, 86 when the tractor was returned to the dealer be deleted from the loan account. It was further directed that the fresh loan account be submitted to the complainant i.e., to the proprietor of M/s. Pragati Auto Spares within a month from the date of orders. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records. The appellant before us (Allahabad Bank) took the plea before the District Forum that the complainant who was a dealer of the tractor purchased by the loanee Dilaga Rai was not a consumer under the Act. This fact was summarily disposed of by the District Forum and it was observed by the Forum as follows :- ****

We fail to appreciate the rationale behind the above observance of the District Forum as contained in the order at page 3. The complainant admittedly had no direct dealings with the Bank and can not be said to have hired the services of the Bank. Further, merely because the loanee Shri Dilaga Rai put the responsibility for the return of the loan taken by him on the complainant would not make him legally liable for the repayment of the loan in the absence of any undertaking given in writing by him to the Bank to that effect and accepted as such by the Bank. Moreover this is a matter concerning accounting in the records of the Bank and the direction as given by the District Forum for furnishing revised accounts as per their directions is not covered by any of the reliefs provided for under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act which can be given to a consumer by the Redressal Forum under the Act.

IN the light of these observations the orders of the District Forum can not be sustained and are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.