Chirayinkil C P Bhadra Kumar vs S Mahendran

SMT . Pragati Shegaonkar widow of Late Pradeep Kumar Shegaonkar and two others have filed this appeal -being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Indore in Case No. 798/91 on 26.11.1991.

THE case of the complainant before the Forum in brief was that the non -applicant Bank of India through its Bank Manager, Branch Rambagh Indore made a deliberate false claim and alleged that the aforesaid bank had to recover some loan from predecessor entitle of the complainant No. 1 and 2, when no amount was due. Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar was granted loan to purchase a mini truck for his transport business for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the finance scheme of bank. The instalments of Rs. 80,000/was made on 24.4.81. Thus Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar was a consumer. After his death on 14.6.1984 it was reported to the bank by complainant No. 3 who stood guarantor for payment of the loan. Widow of Late Pradeep Shegaonkar apply to the bank for waiver of interest on the loan amount. The bank had not given any thing in writing but the bank did not charge any interest on the loan amount from 1st Jan. 1984. The complainant No. 3 who was the elder brother of the deceased and who was also the guarantor had repaid the loan. Thus there remaining no outstanding payment till 14.2.1986. The complainant and the other members of the Shegaonkar family decided to sale certain immovable properties, agricultural lands, including a house in village Budaniya. One Mr. G.D. Khandelwal was a property broker through whom the dual was finalised. Mr. Khandelwal published a public notice on behalf of his client in Dainik Bhaskar dt. 3.4.91 inviting objections to the proposed sale of the land. In response of the said public notice, the bank through its Counsel Nem Joshi gave a notice to broker Shri Khandelwal that some amount is due against Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar. The bank never gave an intimation to the complainant and other members of the Shegaonkar family. This resulted in cancellation of the deal and substantial loss to the consumer. The notice, was given for the malafied intention. The bank knew that the loan been given has been paid off. The intention of the bank that the charge on the property was totally false. The broker Shri Khandelwal has also suppressed the fact of receipt of notice to him and got a sale deed in favour of his client in respect of comparatively valuable property under the pretext of loan and refused to purchase the other portion under the pretext of the banks notice.

THE complainant No. 3 made a clear demand of Rs. 1.50 lacs for the damages to their reputation because of the Banks irresponsible and defamatory notice, to the 3rd party. The complainant No. 3 wrote a letter to the bank demanding Rs. 1.50 lacs for defamatory notice. The non appellant No. 2 knew the fact that the complainant and the entire Shegaonkar family enjoys the high reputation. The notice created great hindrance, in the deal of sale of the land. The notice was false and defamatory and was intended to harass the. complainants and to harm their reputation. The notice of the bank to Shri Khandelwal in evidence of the Banks inefficient faculty and imperfect service to the customer like the complainant. The complainants claim Rs. 95,000/on five counts.

THE learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that such a complaint is not maintainable by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal is preferred. In this appeal the contention contained that Forum fails to appreciate and understand the real dispute put forward by the complainant. The learned Forum was wrong in constructing the complaint as being one for compensation, for defamation and for the loss of the delay in the deal of sale of land. The learned Forum was wrong in holding that the dispute was of civil nature. The learned Forum should have seen the Act of the bank had committed serious breach of terms, norms and the notice given by the bank to Shri Khandelwal was highly irresponsible action affecting adversely the rights, interest and privileges as of customer of the banks. We have heard with patience the learned Arguments by Shri R.C. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellant. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2 defines: Section 2(d) ''Consumer'' means any person who, - (i) buys any goods 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 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 re -sale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires 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 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 or with the approval of the first mentioned person;

FIRSTLY , by reading of complaint it is clear that the original transaction of the bank with Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar that a loan was given to purchase a mini truck for his transport business, and it is through Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar that the present complainants claim the relief of compensation. In the eyes of the present Act this transaction with Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar was for commercial purpose, hence whatever has been transpired in between the bank and the broker of the 3rd party is not covered by the mischief of the present Act, particularly the definition of the Consumer. When Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar was not a consumer and was only a debtor of the bank and his part contention of the complainant is that has been discharged. It is only the common law Court which is competent to hold whether the interest due has been condoned are written off on the basis of the mercy petition of the widow of Late Shri Pradeep Kumar Shegaonkar. The complainants expected the District Forum to probe into the matter whether some amount was due against Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar again is a matter which falls in the preview of the Civil Court.

I further find that the complainant desires that the commercial transaction including the sums due or payment made should be considered right from 24.4.81. It is further to note that whether the bank has famously considered the prayer of Smt. Pragati Shegaonkar or not. Whether the broker Shri Khandelwal taking pretext of the banks notice and refusing to purchase the other part of the land cannot be a subject matter of enquiry by the Forum.

10.THE Complainant No. 3 before the Forum and now the appellant before this State Commission has served notice of the bank demanding Rs. 1.50 lacs damages of their reputation because of the banks irresponsible and defamatory notice to the 3rd party. This contention by the complainant means that the District Forum should have given a finding that whether the notice by the bank was defamatory. In para 15 of the complaint the complainants have referred to their high reputation in the eyes of the bank, in the society and in the business world. THE further contention that the notice to Shri Khandelwal has tended to damage the reputation of the complainant and his family.

IN Para 16 of the complaint, the complainants have trial, to say about the inefficient faulty and imperfect service to the consumer like the complainants. We have already concluded that in transaction with Late Shri Pradeep Shegaonkar was commercial one hence the legal representatives of the present claim through him cannot claim relief, compensation under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The only relief which the Forum could have granted, could be under Section 14(d). ''To pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party''.

When complainant cannot be said Consumer, the Forum rightly rejected the complaint holding that the complainants who are the legal representatives can not be granted relief under Section 14 (d).

THE Forum was right when it hold that the complaint about defamation cannot be examined by the District Forum as compensation for defamation is not covered by Section 14. The District Forum was further correct when it holds that the principally in State Bank of Hyderabad, Raikal Branch, v. Shri Bairi Lingam, I (1991) CPJ 362=1991 (1) CPR 148. does not help the case of the complainant that was the case where bank concentrate to give it in such case no relief could be given under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. In that authority the State Commission Andhra Pradesh further hold that relief can be given for damages against the loan.

IN the present case, what the complainants content in the bank by showing balance has caused damages to the prestige of the complainant. The complainants have further not come with the case as to what loss in the price of value of the land they have suffered in case of legal notice of dues against them was given to the broker Shri Khandelwal. On the contrary, in the complaint, the complainants have mentioned that they could persuade the broker to the complete the deal. Hence, the complaint does not fall under the scope of inquiry of the Consumer Protection Act It was rightly rejected, by the District Forum.

IN the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. As the opposite party was not served with notice by the District Forum, and by this Commission. No order as to be cost. Appeal dismissed.