KRISHAN BIHARI VYAS vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President

THE complaint was received by the post on 12.2.1991. It was filed under Section 12 read with Sec. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (R.F.C.) Jaipur, having its Branch Office as District Industries Centre, Mandia Road, Pali, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant so that the complainant who alleges himself as handicapped person can re-establish his life, waive any monetary demand against him and to remove their locks immediately and make the unit free from their possession. The complainant established M/s. D.S.V. Industries F.21, Industrial Area, Marwar Junction in the year 1980 with the financial aid of Rs. 1.93 lacs from the opposite party. The complainant proposed a project of manufacturing Barbed wire and the RFC examined the viability of the project both at their branch and head offices. It accepted the loan application and sanctioned the same in the meeting held at Head Office Jaipur on 10-12-1980. It has been alleged by the complainant that there was no disbursement of the agreed loan by the Branch Manager, Pali as per project for want of money (dividend) and also the State subsidy was detained. Para 5 of the complaint is as under: "That the branch Manager was of the motto to harass as he was not paid, abnormally delayed in execution of second charge in favour of bank, with the result the necessary working capital required for running of the unit was not made available to the unit by the bank and the unit was forced to suffer without production and sale right from the date of start."

There was no production. The Corporation forced the unit to pay the interest and the penaly interest which the complainant had paid regularly upto the year 1983. The complainant had alleged that the unit did not achieve 5% of the production target at which the Corporation considered the viability of the project. The complainant was pressed for repayment of the loan, interest and penal interest. He wanted the amount for rehabilitation. The complainant met with the road accident on 14-8-1985 and became handicapped and on account of that the unit was closed. Since 107-1986, the complainant has been approaching the opposite party for granting him permission to re-start the unit, in order to pay the dues. The grievances of the complainant is that by not granting permission, interest and penal interest are being multiplied. It has been alleged that on 11-1-1991 the staff of the Branch Office at Pail of the Corporation broke the locks of the factory and sealed the same. No intimation was given to the complainant He therefore, filed the complaint for the various relief''s.

The complainant submitted photostat copies of the letters etc. with the complaint.

A show-cause notice was issued to him as to why the complaint be not rejected as not maintainable under the Act. An order was also made that the complainant should furnish the requisite copies. The complainant has furnished the requisite copies today. The complainant was heard at some length on the question of the maintainability of the complaint under the Act. The questions involved in this complaint were canvassed before us in many cases in the past. After taking into consideration the definitions of the "complainant", "complaint", "consumer", "consumer dispute", "deficiency" and "service" as mentioned in Sec. 2(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (o) of the Act respectively, Sec. 14 of the Act and the orders of the National Commission rendered in M/s Jayal Iron and Steel Works v. State Bank of India and Others. (Original Petition No. 22/89 with Miscellaneous Petition No. 23/89 for directions) decided on August 31,. 1989 Ramkripal Bhargava v. Union of India and Others. I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC). (First Appeal No. 23/89 decided on March 16,1990), it was held that the complainant cannot maintain the complaint under the Act. The State Commission in Precision Engineering Works v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur (Appeal No. 28/90 decided on 12-10-1990) after taking into consideration Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, held that the complainant may pursue another any independent proceeding as may be open to him in law where it is not possible to grant relief to the complainant under the Act. M.L. Joseph v. State Bank of India Trichur (Original petition no. 12/1989 decided on August 23,1989) and Society of U.P. Consumer for Education and Actions v. Bank of Baroda, Lucknow (Original Petition No. 13/89 decided on 28-3-1989 by the National Commission) were also relied on.

IN Precision Engineering case (supra) one of the relief sought by the complainant-appellant was that the possession of the factory which has been taken over by the R.F.C. may be restored as it was not in accordance with law and certain other reliefs were sought It is firmly established that the complainant-appellant cannot be regarded as consumer at all. He had only borrowed certain amounts from the R.F.C. and the relationship is only that of borrower and debtor and out of such a relationship, a consumer dispute cannot arise. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the National Commission and also of Modern Mechanical and Electronics Engineering Group Jaipur v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur (Appeal No. 102/90 decided on December 13, 1990) and the Precision Engineering case (supra) we are of opinion that this complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is dismissed on the limited ground stated above. Complaint dismissed.