HOME PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES vs U.P.VITTA NIGAM LTD

IN this complaint, presented in the Registry of the Commission on 25 November, 1991 by the complainants "''Home Product INdustries Ltd." through its proprietor Sri Jaswant Rai, there are four opposite parties. The first two are the U.P. Financial Corporation Ltd. and its regional Manager while the third is the General Manager of the District, INdustries Centre, Kotdwar and the 4th is the Joint Director of INdustries, Jhansi. The complainant has asked for direction against these opposite parties for sanctioning the rehabilitation scheme of his unit, payment of sanctioned amount of margin money, restraining them from realising any interest on the loan given to him till the sanctioning of the rehabilitation scheme and allocation of funds for it, for refunding the amount of Rs. 2,56,000/-in vested by, the complainant as capital with interest thereon, for payment of compensation for annual loss suffered by him due to the action of the opposite parties at Rs. 7,20,000/-per year and also issuing a direction for departmental proceedings against opposite party No. 4 on account of his failure to abide by the instructions issued by his superior officers in the matter of the complainant''s industry.

IN a complaint running into 21 paragraphs the complainant has alleged. that he was a retired officer of the INdian Defence Force and had established an industrial unit in District Pauri Garhwal in the year 1983 which had been declared to be Zero INdustry District of category ''A''. The unit was setup at Kotdwar at the cost of Rs. 10 lakhs but of which the complainant had invested personally a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/-and had taken a loan from first two opposite parties to the tune of Rs 5,21,000/-. He had received a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/-as central subsidy. The complainant''s case is that the third opposite party had sanctioned a margin money of Rs. 2,57,000/-which was to be given to him by way of loan and on that basis working capital was to be made available to the complainant by the Bank. Out of this amount only a sum of Rs. 60,000/-was given to him. The complainant alleges that the unit started production in the year 1984 but for lack of working capital it could not attain its full production capacity. The complainant had a standing order for supply of ''Meethi Sonf (sweet Sonf) of an unlimited quantity from Radha Swami Satsangh Vyas, Punjab which he could not meet satisfactorily due to the various lapses on the part of the opposite parties in making available to him the working capital in time. The complainant goes on to say that by the year 1989 he had already suffered considerable loss and all his efforts to get the remaining amount of the Central subsidy released in his favour failed. The complainant says that upon his representations the Joint Director of Industries, Meerut called him for an interview during his tour of the Garhwal Region on 27 September, 1989 and after duly feeling satisfied with the problems of the complainant directed the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Kotdwar to make the remaining amount of margin money, being Rs. 2 lakhs, available to the complainant by 30 September, 1989. He also directed the General Manager to convene a meeting of the Financial Institutions and take a decision in the matter of the complainant by 10 October 1989. In spite of these directions nothing was done even though the complainant had also presented a representation before the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in the matter. Some further orders were passed and ultimately a meeting of the ''Udyog Bandhu'' took place under the President ship of the Industries Minister on 28th August, 1990 in which a decision was taken that the sick unit, of the petitioner should be rehabilitated and margin money given to him. The proceedings u/Section 29 of me Financial Corporation Art, -which had been initiated in the meanwhile against the complainant''s suit, were directed to be stayed. The complainant has thereafter detailed the efforts made by him to get this decision implemented along with the grievance that nothing was done by the opposite parties. He then filed the complaint.

The first two opposite parties filed a written statement, though with some delay, in which most of the accusations made against them were denied. It was stated that a term loan of Rs. 3.91 lakhs was sanctioned to the complainant in the month of June, 1982 and an additional loan of Rs. 3 lakhs was sanctioned in November, 1983 for manufacturing ''Toffees'' sweet drops etc. at Kotdwar and that out of the total sanctioned loan of Rs. 6.3 lakhs a sum of Rs. 5,12,348/-was actually disbursed and the remaining loan was cancelled. The unit came in production in May, 1984 but the complainant did not run it properly and mis-utilized the Central subsidy. It has also been said that the complainant did not use the money given by way of loan to him for the purposes for which it was sanctioned and also did not give the required information in respect of his rehabilitation scheme which, after enquiry, was rejected and intimation given to the complainant through letter dated 2 April, 1990. It has also been said that rescheduling had been done of the loan and the amount of interest for its repayment but the complainant did not adhere to the revised schedule as well. According to the written statement more than Rs. 10 lakhs was outstanding against the complainant which was not paid in spite of repeated demands and proceedings for its realisation had to be initiated under the Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The complainant challenged the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 20092 of 1990, which was ultimately rejected by the High Court at Allahabad by its order dated 27 April, 1992. It has also been pleaded that the complainant was not inclined to repay the amount of loan and further that he was not a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor could the relief''s asked for by him be given in these proceedings.

THE complainant filed an affidavit in support of the assertions made by him in the complaint and also a replication in respect of the allegations made in the written statement. He has reiterated his own version and has also repudiated allegations of mis-management of his industry and mis-utilisation of the loan. In paragraph 5 of the replication the complainant has mentioned that in his writ petition he had prayed to the High Court that a direction should be issued to the opposite parties to sanction the rehabilitation scheme and to make necessary amount available to him to enable the complainant to rehabilitate it. He has not denied the assertion made on behalf of the first-two opposite parties in their written statement that the writ petition had been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. We have noticed these facts in brief since the kind of relief sought in the present petition can normally not be granted in summary proceedings envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreso, when the complainant had already failed to secure similar relief sought by him from the High Court on the same facts.

THE provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, envisage grant of relief of the nature provided for in Section 14 in the event of any deficiency in "service" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o). In the circumstances of the present case, even as alleged by the complainant, it is not possible to hold that the opposite parties who were providing to the complainant some service of financing for consideration, were deficient on their part, as far as the complainant is concerned. Besides, as noticed earlier, the first two opposite parties attribute to the complainant himself the mis-management of his affairs and mis-utilisation of the funds actually placed at his disposal by way of loan. THE complainant, admittedly, failed to get a direction from the High Court at Allahabad in regard to sanctioning of his rehabilitation scheme and release of further amount of money for running his industry. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for the Commission to make a probe into the claim made by the complainant or grant any relief to him. THE complainant, if so advised, may seek relief from a Competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter if permissible by law. The complaint fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed.