MUKESH JAIN Vs. V K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint before the State Commission was one claiming damages against the respondent Bank for unilateral stoppage of a cash credit facility. The State Commission went into the merits of the case and found that the Complainant had failed to establish the case put forward by him and that the evidence disclosed that the Bank was fully justified in not renewing the cash credit facility because the Complainant had failed to produce the requisite documents before the Bank despite his having been called upon to do so. In the light of those findings, the State Commission dismissed the complaint

(2.) We have recently, in the order passed by us is O.P. 32 of 1989 date 22nd December, 1989 considered the question whether a person who has borrowed amounts from a Bank under overdraft or cash credit facility etc. can seek relief against the Bank under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the Bank had failed to advance further amounts to him or had discontinued the overdraft or cash credit facility. In the light of the principles laid down in that order, it is manifest that the appellant was not entitled to the grant of any relief from the State Commission.

(3.) Before parting with this case, we would, however, like to state that we do not share the view expressed by the State Commission that "unfair trade practice" is related only to goods and Act to services under the Act The provisions of the Act leave no room for doubt that a complaint of unfair trade practice can be made by a consumer both in respect of supply of goods as well as in relation to the providing of services for consideration.