AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Forum, Cuttack in C.D. Case No. 431 of 1993. The complainant is the appellant in this appeal. The complainant filed the aforesaid case for issuing a direction to the present respondents to revive the industrial unit of the complainant and to waive the interest which has accrued on the loan disbursed to him. He has also prayed for a direction for sanction of the margin money assistance and the response the loan outstanding. A further prayer has been made by him to grant Government subsidy and to waive the electric charges and take back the machineries in financed for wooden products unit by the present respondents. The complainant has narrated the sequence of events and the reasons as to why the industry could not run properly and the justification which according to him should have weighed with the present respondents for giving further monetary assistance for reviving the industry.
WE are not going into the details of his pleadings for the reason that in our opinion the complainant would not be a consumer within the meaning of the Act and his prayers made before the District Forum would be beyond the purview of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Some of the opposite parties, namely, the present respondents 1 and 2 filed a show cause denying the allegations made by the complainant and justifying the non-disbursement of further loan besides Rs. 35,000/-which was initially disbursed by favour of the complainant. It has been held repeatedly by the National Commission as well as by this Commission that disbursement of loan by a financing institution depends upon various factors and unless the complainant complies with the requirements and conditions imposed for the grant of loan, the consumer forum cannot give any direction for sanction or disbursement of any loan. In the present case, out of the loan sanctioned, a sum of Rs. 35,000/-in a phased manner was disbursed in favour of the complainant. But no further loan was disbursed as the complainant did not comply with the requirements for further disbursement by not producing the stock statement at monthly intervals and to maintain the books of accounts and records of purchase, sales and stocks etc. and to submit the stock statement. So far as the other prayers in the complaint petition are concerned, such as to waive the interest on the loan disbursed, to waive the electric charges, to rephase the loan outstanding or to sanction margin money assistance for revival of the unit, the same are beyond the scope of the Consumer Forum and, therefore, the matter need not be further probed. WE also agree with the District Forum that since a civil case between the parties is pending, the present proceeding could not be allowed to proceed which may lead to inconsistent conclusions. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.