State Bank of India vs Rajendra & Another

All these revision petitions arise out of common order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order. 2. These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 6.7.2015 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. FA/13/123, State Bank of India v. Rajendra & Anr.; FA/13/125, State Bank of India v. Gunmala & Anr.; FA/13/255, National Horticulture Board v. Rajendra & Anr. and FA/13/256, National Horticulture Board v. Gunmala & Anr., by which appeals were dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondent No. 1 filed separate complaints before District Forum and submitted that they are owner of land and as per scheme of opposite party No. 1/petitioner, they cultivated grapes in their land. Complainants obtained loan of Rs. 500 lakh from opposite party No. 2/petitioner and also invested Rs. 1,35,525. It was further pleaded that Government sanctioned subsidy of Rs. 1,27,505 and this amount was required to be deposited in their loan account but this amount was not deposited in their loan account. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainants obtained the loan from opposite party No. 2 which was to be repaid as per terms and conditions of loan. It was, further, pleaded that complainants repaid loan much before the stipulated period and thus violated terms and conditions of loan agreement, so, they were not entitled to subsidy amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party No. 2 is not aware about any scheme or sanction of subsidy and complainant is not their consumer and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,27,505 with 9% p.a. interest along with Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation. Both opposite parties filed separate appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed all appeals against which these revision petitions have been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that as complainants deposited loan amount in violation of terms and conditions of loan agreement and for purposes of grant of subsidy, they were not ''consumers'' even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaints and learned State Commission, further committed error in dismissing appeals, hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petitions be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed that complainants obtained loan from opposite party No. 2 for purposes of crop of grapes in their fields, as per scheme of opposite party No. 1. It is also not disputed that complainants deposited loan amount much before the stipulated period in violation of terms and conditions of loan agreement. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeals observed that failure to deposit or repay can be subject for punishment but in the case in hand, opposite parties have punished honest borrowers (complainants) for repaying their loan before date. 6. As per scheme of opposite party No. 1, subsidy amount was to be adjusted after the bank loan is liquidated and bank loan was to be repaid as per instalments but complainants in violation of terms and conditions of loan repaid amount earlier, so, were not entitled to subsidy. 7. Learned Counsel for petitioners rightly argued that for the purposes of grant of subsidy, complainant does not fall within the purview of ''consumer'' as held by this Commission in III (1993) CPJ 267 (NC) : 1993 STPL (CL) 7 NC, Himachal Weavers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. & Ors., RP No. 4894 of 2012, Chaudhary Ashok Yadav v. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank & Anr., I (2013) CPJ 668 (NC) and III (1993) CPJ 337 (NC) : CPR-1993-3-407, Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Sawhney Brothers v. NOIDA,. 8. It was observed in aforesaid cases that complainant has not hired any service for consideration for providing subsidy and subsidy was to be disbursed as and when it was received from Central Government and therefore complainant cannot be treated as ''consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act. 9. In the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that complainant does not fall within the purview of ''consumer'' for not releasing the subsidy and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaints and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals and revision petitions are to be allowed. 10. Consequently, revision petitions filed by petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 6.7.2015 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. FA/13/123, State Bank of India v. Rajendra & Am.; FA/13/125-State Bank of India v. Gunmala & Am.; FA/13/255, National Horticulture Board v. Rajendra & Anr. and FA/13/256, National Horticulture Board v. Gunmala & Am., and order of District Forum dated 1.3.2013 passed in Complaint No. 124/2012, Rajendra P. Keshav Rajenimbalkar v. The Centre In-charge, National Horticulture Board & Anr.; Complaint No. 123/2012, Gunmala v. The Centre In-Charge, National Horticulture Board & Anr., is set aside and both the complaints stands dismissed. Parties to bear their costs. Revision Petitions allowed.