M.V. SRIKANTA vs KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPN

IN this complaint, the Complainant has sought compensation of a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs from the Opp. Party the Karnataka State Financial Corporation.

THE Complainant had established a small scale industry. He had secured financial assistance from the Opp. Party the Karnataka State Financial Corporation; subsequently the industry became sick. It is the further case of the Complainant that for the rehabilitation of sick industry, he got loan sanctioned for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the Industrial Development Bank of India. One of the condition of the release of the said amount was to provide additional capital of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- by the Complainant.

It is the further case of the Complainant that the Government of Karnataka formulated a scheme for providing the promoter''s contribution for which the Complainant had to give appraisal memorandum to the Opp. Party. The Opp. Party did not despatch the said appraisal memorandum to Government of Karnataka and in consequence of which the Complainant could not secure the additional funds of Rs. 34,000/- and consequently the said loan of Rs. 3 lakhs came to be lapsed. The Complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the Opp. Party.

THE Opp. Parties filed their version and disputed the averments contained in the complaint. THE Opp. Parties averred that the Complainant is a regular defaulter and he was not even able to provide the margin money and so the further loan could not be advanced to the Complainant. The Opp. Parties further averred that the Complainant has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 527/91 seeking certain reliefs which is still pending. The Complainant even filed a W.P. No. 7879/91 seeking the same relief but it came to be dismissed; against the said order he has filed C.P. No. 922/92 which is still pending.

THE Opp. Parties nextly averred that the Complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' and so the ''complaint'' was untenable. We heard the Complainant and the learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties regarding the maintainability of the complaint; perused the pleadings of the parties. The Opp. Party is the Karnataka State Financial Corporation. It is material on record that the Complainant had obtained loan from the Opp. Party and when the Complainant''s industry became sick, applied financial assistance for rehabilitation of a sick industry.

IT is also material on record that the Complainant has filed a suit and a W.P. seeking certain reliefs in respect of the same transaction. Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant cannot be regarded as a ''consumer'' and the dispute raised by him is not a ''consumer'' dispute. The National Commission, while considering such an aspect of the matter in M/s. Aggarwal Dyeing Industries v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others, II (1991) CPJ 341 on First Appeal No. 2 of 1991, observed thus : "We find on our going through the facts of the case that the Appellant cannot be regarded as consumer at all as per the definition of the said expression contained in the Act. He had only borrowed certain amounts from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the relationship is only that of borrower and debtor. We have already held in several cases that out of such a relationship a consumer dispute cannot arise. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be rejected though not on the ground stated by the State Commission. This Appeal is accordingly dismissed."

THE same view was taken by the Rajasthan State Commission, in Krishan Behari Vyas v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, reported in 1992 (1) CPR 86, which reads, as under: "Where the Complainant had only borrowed an amount from a Financial Corporation, his relationship is only that of borrower and debtor and out of such relationship a consumer dispute cannot arise."

In the present case as well the relationship between the parties is only that of a borrower and a debtor and so the dispute raised by the complainant is not a ''consumer dispute'' and the complainant cannot be regarded as a ''consumer''. So the complaint is untenable. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails arid it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed without costs.