JASVINDER KAUR Vs. DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, in her capacity as proprietor of Fine Art Printers and STD Centre, has filed the present complaint, under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') averring that the complainant had applied to the opposite party for a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- under the 'mahila Utmani Nidhi', a scheme floated by the opposite party, for the purchase of a computer with printer, a Photostat Machine and STD Machine for business purposes so as to earn her livelihood. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint in nutshell is that though the complainant has completed all the formalities, as required by the opposite party but the opposite party is not releasing the loan amount. It has been prayed by the complainant that the opposite party be directed to release the loan amount. The complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss suffered by her besides the cost of litigation.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant at length on the question of admission of the present complaint and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The short question requiring consideration at the very threshold is as to whether there was any deficieney in service on the part of the opposite party in the given facts. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is apparent that the complainant had applied for sanction of loan to the opposite party for the purpose of expanding her business activities, being carried on by her under the name and style of Fine Art Printers and STD Cantre at Shop No.48, Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. On record, there is a letter/communication dated 12/13.7.2000, addressed to the complainant from the Deputy General Manager, of the opposite party. The operative portion of the above said communication reads as under : "please refer to your letter dated 10.4.2000 on the above noted subject. In this connection, we are to inform you that as per the policy of the Corporation, units set up/proposed to be set up within the premises of religious places, cannot be considered for financing and therefore, your loan application has been rejected. "

(3.) On a bare perusal of the contents of the above said communication, it is apparent that the loan application of the complainant, after duly taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the policy being followed by the opposite party, which is a Government Owned Corporation and as such, a 'state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, has been rejected by the opposite party. In our opinion, in the given facts, even if the complainant is a 'consumer' within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act, even then it cannot be stated that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the oposite party. In our above view we stand fortified by a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case Union Bank of India V/s. Mohinder Kumar,1992 3 CPJ 48. In the above case of Union Bank of India, the Hon'ble National Commission has held : "it has already been held by this Commission that the mere refusal by the Bank of a loan to an applicant after duly taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and reaching a conclusion in good faith, that will not be in the public interest of safeguarding the safety of the funds of the Bank to make the advances in question, will not constitute a deficiency. "