AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS appeal has been filed in the year 2002 and it is still dragging on at the stage of admission hearing. Notices before admission were issued to the respondents and employee of the respondents is present.
THE matter was required to be adjourned mostly on the behest of the appellants. We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book.
The appellants herein are the org. complainants and respondents are org. O.Ps. (For brevity''s sake appellants are referred to as ''Complainants'' and respondents as ''Bank'').
THE complainants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27th May, 2002 passed by District Forum, Thane dismissing their complaint holding that the complainants were not consumers so as to entitle to maintain the dispute before the Consumer Fora. At the outset, we wish to state that we have reservations about reasonings as assigned by the District Forum while dismissing the complaint. However, as we point out hereinafter, the conclusion rendered in this judgment is correct. We proceed to dispose of this appeal assigning reasonings as will be indicated herein below.
IT is noticed that the complainants applied for loan facility from the Bank for the purpose of their poultry business. The complainants expected the release of loan amount to the extent of Rs. 1,86,000/- but entire amount was not made available. Hence the complaint. In response to the notices issued by the Forum, Bank appeared and filed the written statement and brought to the notice of the District Forum the proceedings taken by the Bank in the Co-operative Court for recovery of the loan amount advanced to the complainants because of default in repayment as also the order passed against the complainants. When such a plea was raised, District Forum should have taken notice of the fact that the matter was sub-judice before the competent Court at the time of filing of the complaint and that itself would be a ground to reject the complaint.
HOWEVER, findings rendered by the District Forum that the complainants are not consumers cannot be sustained since the subject matter of the dispute herein pertains to advancement of loan and as such related to banking business which would squarely fall within the definition of services as envisaged under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
THEREFORE, for different reasonings, we maintain the conclusion of the impugned judgment of dismissal of the complaint. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. However, there shall not be any order as to costs. 3. Copies to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.