PUNJAB KHADI BOARD vs Sukhwinder Singh

THIS appeal is by the opposite party challenging order of District Forum, Mansa dated August 14,1996 directing the appellant to return the original mortgage deed and issue ''no due certificate'' to the complainant, alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs.

SUKHWINDER Singh, complainant, took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Punjab Khadi Board - the opposite party. As per terms and conditions of the loan, he was to purchase the machinery and pay 4% interest on the loan. In case of non- utilisation of the loan, he was to pay 5% interest. The complainant having discharged the entire loan asked for return of the mortgage deed and ''no due certificate''. Since the same was not done, District Forum was approached. The version submitted by the appellant was that inspite of several notices having been issued, the complainant did not submit bills for the purchase of the machinery. Thus, it was taken that he had misused the loan and notices were issued to pay interest at the enhanced rate i.e. 5%, amounting to Rs. 8,669/-. Steps were also taken to recover the same. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint was also raised. On the affidavits and documents produced by the parties, the impugned order was passed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum could not entertain the complaint. It was internal matter of the Khadi Board. As per terms and conditions of the loan to charge enhanced rate of interest on failure of the complainant to submit the utilisation certificate i.e. the bills for the purchase of the machinery. The word service has been defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as under: ""Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply or electrical or other energy/board or lodging or both housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

A bare perusal of the definition of service as mentioned above would show that service includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, etc. The present is a case of financing and the dispute relating to deficiency in rendering service is covered under the provision of the Act.

THE question for consideration in this case was as to whether the loan taken by the complainant had been utilised by purchasing machinery or not. Before the District Forum, the complainant produced necessary bills showing the purchase of the machinery which evidence was accepted. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that such bills were not produced before the appellant and the appellant was justified in claiming enhanced rate of interest. In support thereof reference has been made to documents which were produced before the District Forum and copies thereof were produced alongwith the appeal. Annexure A-1 contains the terms and conditions of the loan and Condition No. 4 thereof reads as under : "4. In the case of Individual/Society/ Institution fails to utilise the amounts for the purpose for which they have been paid or allow them to remain with him/them unutilised he/they shall have to pay additional interest @ 5% per annum over and above the prescribed rate of interest and refund the said amounts to the Board immediately."

Annexures A-2 and A-3 are the notices issued prior to 6th of September, 1991 and for our purposes they are of no use as the report on which reliance has been placed on inspection of the site is Annexure A-4, which is dated September 11, 1996. It purports to have been made by Member Secretary of the appellant- Board. Under Column No. 10, it was observed that utilisation certificate was not submitted by the party. In Column No. 16 certain discrepancies were noticed, it was mentioned as under : "1. No. bill of purchased machinery was there. 2. No record is being maintained. 3. From the condition of machines it seems to be purchased old. 4. The party is not co-operating to inspect the files i.e. besides so many reminders given during tour."

ITEM No. 4 as referred to above clearly indicates that at the complainant''s premises a machine did exist and observation was made that the same appeared to be old. Whether the machine was old which was alleged to have been purchased in 1984, as found in September, 1987 is only an opinion expressed by the Member Secretary without there being any material collected in that respect. How old was the machine is not mentioned therein. This report does not bear attestation of the complainant and furthermore the correspondence following does not make reference of such report on which act it seems to have been taken by the Board. Thus, it is not a case of non-utilisation of the loan taken for which notices were given for raising the rate of interest. Before the District Forum, it may be observed that necessary bills showing purchase of the machinery were produced, which evidence has been accepted by the District Forum. It was open to the Board to contradict such evidence. Since on perusal of the material, we notice that the Board did not collect any material before passing any order for recovering enhanced rate of interest there is obviously deficiency in rendering service. As a matter of fact no order of any Competent Authority relying upon the report aforesaid has been produced that any such order was passed by the Board as such. The order passed by the District Forum on account of deficiency in rendering service as above is perfectly in order and we find no ground to interfere with it. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ________________