T.A.ABRAHAM vs MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

THE complainant in O.P. 784/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. THE complaint came to be dismissed by the District Forum holding that the complainant is not a consumer. THE complainant''s case was, himself an employee of the opposite party applied for a loan of rupees one lakh under the Housing Facility Scheme of the opposite party. He claimed, as the sanction of the loan was delayed he suffered loss and inconvenience which he sought to maintain would amount to deficiency of service and, therefore, wanted compensation. THE opposite party remained ex-parte. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint on the finding that the complainant is not a consumer.

ONLY question that would arise for consideration is whether the complainant can be treated as a consumer. Whereas the learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that the complainant is a consumer in the context of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the respondent would endeavour to support the decision of the District Forum urging, since no consideration passed from the complainant to the opposite parties, even assuming that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party the same being without consideration the complainant cannot be reckoned as a consumer and, therefore, the dismissal of the complaint has to be upheld. In resolving the dispute it has to be noted that the complainant applied for the facility of the loan as per a beneficial scheme propounded by the opposite party/respondent. Availing a loan from an institution like the opposite party could be treated as service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said definition defines service to include the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical energy and also states that the service means service of any description which is made available to potential users. The opposite party''s character as a banking institution cannot be in dispute. Since the complainant wanted to avail the service of the said institution, even at the initial stage he would be a potential user. Now coming to the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) which defines ''consumer'' it could be seen that it is not necessary that actual consideration should pass to the opposite party simultaneously with the availing of service, for the definition under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) states that consumer is a person who hires or avails any service for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised. The very definition thus envisages to include consideration as one which is promised also. When a person applies for loan and get the loan on sanctioning the same, the amount would carry interest. In the circumstance the same should be treated as consideration for the service rendered by the banking institution by providing the loan. Having regard to the definition under Sections 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d)(ii) as understand above we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer. In that view the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as the complainant/appellant is a consumer. The other question that would arise for consideration are whether there was deficiency in service and if so, what should be the quantum of compensation. The order of the District Forum does not show whether the complainant has filed affidavit or produced any document. This Commission therefore, cannot go into those two questions without any material concerning the same. Consequently the matter has to go back to the District Forum to adjudicate the said two aspects.

In the result the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum which shall restore the complaint and enquire into the aforesaid aspects. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 11.12.2000. Appeal allowed.