GOPI LAL vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN And OTHERS

BEING dissatisfied with the order dismissing the complaint, the complainants-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 28.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 837/89. The complainants filed a complaint against opposite parties No. 1 to 5 who are respondents No. 1 to 5 and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 (Rajasthan Financial Corporation) who are respondents No. 1 to 3 praying that they are entitled to the grant of subsidy and so direction may be issued to the State Govt. and the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) to make payment of the amounts mentioned in the relief para. Original subsidy amount sought was Rs. 16,700.25. The other amounts claimed consist of interest, compensation, financial loss etc. The complainants have submitted photo stat copy of letter No. JPO/E-305/0018 dated 30.3.1988 to show that the RFC agreed to grant a loan of Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the complainants for the industrial project at Balaji. In para 2 of the letter dated 30.3.1988 estimated cost and proposed to be financed have been mentioned. The special terms and conditions were also provided. Provisional Registration Certificate has also been produced by the complainants. The certificate was issued by the Office of the Joint Director, District Industries Centre, Jaipur. The version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 5 contesting the complaint. The main defence taken was that merely by accepting that the complainants are eligible for the grant of subsidy by the RFC, they do not become entitled to the grant of subsidy for that is merely a recommendatory and subsidy committee is fully competent to take decision in accordance with law. In para 7 of the version of the case the constitution of the District Subsidy Committee was mentioned. It is said that the file of the complainants was put up at the time of meeting on 25.11.1988 and in view of the order of the Industry Secretary of the Govt. of India No. 15(4)/88 DBA-II dated 22.9.1988 subsidy was discontinued to the industries which fell under the category of non-manufacturing activity and as such the application was rejected. In these circumstances the question of granting of the subsidy does not arise. The complainants submitted an application dated 14.6.1990 to the District Forum for summoning the documents detailed therein. The District Forum held that the complainants are neither the "consumers" nor the opposite parties render any service to them and, so the question of service being deficient does not arise. It therefore, without going into the merits of the complaint dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complainants- appellants.

NOBODY has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Resort was made to Rule 8(6) of the Consumer Protection (Raj) Rules, 1987. We heard Mr. S.K. Chhajed Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. S.S. Gaur, Advocate on behalf of the RFC arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 3 and considered the order under appeal with requisite care. "Complainant", "complaint", "Consumer", "Consumer dispute", "deficiency" and "service" have been defined in Sec. 2(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),(g), and (o) respectively. The complaint lies if the consumer has hired services of the opposite party for consideration and the service so rendered by the opposite party suffers from deficiency. It is well settled by a catena of cases of the National Commission that complaints for not providing adequate financing facility to industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of loan subsidy etc. authorities have to exercise their discretion in accordance with the best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors. In this case the complainants were not granted subsidy on the ground that the unit or industry of the complainants is for non-manufacturing activity and grant of subsidy to such unit or industry was discontinued by an order of the Central Govt. In these circumstances mere failure to provide financial assistance cannot be said to constitute "deficiency" in service as defined in Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act. The complainants cannot be said to have hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration and they cannot be said to be consumers within the meaning of Sec. 2(l)(d) of the Act.

Reference in this connection maybe made to M.L. Joseph v. State Bank of India, Trichur (Original Petition No. 12/89 decided by the National Commission on August 23, 1989). Society of U.P. Consumers for Education and Actions v. Bank of Baroda (Original Petition No. 13/89 decided by the National Commission), M/s. Jayal Iron and Steel v. State Bank of India and Others (Original Petition No. 2/89 with Miscellaneous Petition No. 23/89 for directions decided on August 31, 1989 by the National Commission and Ramkripal Bhargava v. Union of India and Others [First Appeal No. 23/89 decided on 16.3.1989 - I (1991) CPJ 23 (NC)]. The principles laid down by the National Commission were respectfully followed by us in the various cases. The matter can be viewed from another angle. It is well settled that the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act can only grant those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec. 14 of the Act. The reliefs which the complainants have sought do not fall under the category of the reliefs mentioned in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter also, no relief could be granted to the complainants by the District Forum.

IN any case no valid exception can be taken to the order of the District Forum by which the complaint of the complainants was dismissed. We are unable to take a view different from the one taken by the District Forum. The order dismissing the complaint is affirmed. The result is that this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.