AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Lakhbir Singh Gill- the complainant filed this complaint under Section 21 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (for short "the Act,1986") with the allegations that he sustained losses because the State Bank of India ( OP - 5) charged excessive interest, there was violation of Code of Banks Commitment to Micro and Small Enterprises - Aug 2015, also non-payment of share and refusal of grant-in- aid through RTGS. The complainant has prayed for the following relief:
"It is humbly prayed that decree of declaration to the fact that locking of the factory is illegal and is in-violation of micro and small enterprises act 2015, creating hindrance in sanction of interest free loan (VCA) by SFAC, refusal to accept subsidy sanctioned by director of industries, H.P. and charging excessive interest by bank. It is also illegal to with hold Interest subsidy by GMDIC and non Payment of share by opposite party no. 9. The case may b granted against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant along with the decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay:
Opposite Parties No. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 to pay 59+18+29.31+15.69 = 112 Lac
Opposite Party No. 9 = Rs. 35 Lac
Opposite Parties No. 6,7, 8 = 18 Lac
Opposite Party No. 8 = 2.50 Lac
In Favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
Heard the complainant in person at admission stage and perused material on record. Briefly stated facts by the complainant are that he took an initiative to set-up a food processing unit industry in Una, Himachal Pradesh. The total cost of the project was Rs. 497 Lakh. The State Bank of India at Una, (hereinafter referred as "OP - Bank") sanctioned a loan of Rs. 60 Lakh (Term Loan of Rs. 45 Lakh and C/C of Rs. 15 Lakh) on 3 different dates between 7.10.2014 to 04.06.2015. The moratorium period was allowed for 6 months. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice to the OP - Bank when his request for enhancement of loan was not heeded to. The OP- Bank in retaliation, sent a possession notice vide dated 24.02.2016. Complainant further alleged that the OP - Bank did not accept the subsidy of Rs. 37.50 Lakh sent by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Himachal Pradesh(OP-7) and the interest subsidy duly recommended by the bank was not sanctioned by the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Una ( DIC- OP- 8). Complainant further alleged that his request to restructure the accounts as per policy of SBI was ignored by OP-5, which was the violation of 'Code of Banks Commitment to Micro and Small Enterprises,' It was with a bad intention to make complainant's account - NPA (Non-Performing Asset) and thereafter, grab his property worth over Rs. 2 Crore and sell it at throw away price.
Perused the entire complaint and the material on record. The main grouse of the complainant is the deficiency in service from the OPs that- not disbursing the Grant- in-Aid and payment of share/subsidy which led to severe loss to the complainant in setting up a food processing industry. Thus, for admission of this complaint, it is essential to decide
Whether the complainant is a 'Consumer' under the Act,1986
Whether such complaint can be decided summarily.
Complainant is a retired Class A officer- admittedly who had planned to set-up a food processing unit.
Firstly, setting up a food processing industry having huge cost of project to the tune of Rs.497 lakh is a commercial activity. Therefore, in my view, the complainant is not a 'consumer' under sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act 1986. The complaint is not maintainable.
Secondly, this case involves subjects related to loan, advances and subsidy, refusal to grant loan, concerning the eligibility of party to any credit assistance, viability of the project and continuation of the credit facilities etc. which are within the discretion of the financial institution/bank depending upon various factors like financial discipline and past history of borrower and his ability to pay the loan, if such discretion is exercised bonafide. Though the bank has the right to refuse or grant loan is not acceptable, the instant case involves complex questions of facts and interpretation of laws and rights and obligations of parties under various Statutes. The case needs elaborate evidence. Thus, complainant has to seek redressal of his grievances before Civil Court not the Consumer Forum.
Thus, for proper adjudication, it requires exhaustive evidence, cross examination etc. which cannot be done in the summery proceedings under the Act,1986. This bench would like to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors 2002 (2) SCC 1 wherein it was held that, where detailed evidence would have to be led to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages, it was not appropriate for such cases to be heard and disposed of in the summary jurisdiction of the National Commission and that the more appropriate Forum was the Civil Court.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant has arrayed twelve (12) opposite parties, out of which, there are few government authorities and serving officers of the state of Himachal Pradesh, who have nothing to do with the substantive dispute.
Based on entirety of this case, the complaint is dismissed at admission stage with a liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy through proper court except the Consumer Forum established under the Act,1986.
There shall be no order as to cost.