BANK OF INDIA Vs. VIDARBHA CONDUCTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 29.5.95 passed by Maharasthra State Commission at Bombay reversing the Order of the District Forum, Nagpur dated 24th March, 1994 and granting to the complainants a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and are not disputed. Complainant No. 1 had approached the Bank of India -opposite party, petitioner herein, (for short called the Bank) for enhancement of loan facilities some time in the year 1989. The Bank inter alia called upon the first complainant to offer a solvent security of immovable property. The first complainant brought the title deeds of property of the second complainant and lodged them with the Bank some time in August/September, 1989. The facilities for enhancement of loan to the first complainant were however, nor granted. The complainants approached the Bank for return of the title deeds but they were not returned when the complaint was filed. The complainants sought a compensation in the sum of Rs. 89,000/ - for withholding of the title deeds of the second complainant as the non -return of the documents of title amounted to deficiency in service.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Lal it Bhasin, learned Counsel for the petitioner herein and Mr. Rajeev Chhabra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and have gone through the records of the case. The State Commission did not advert to the crucial question in the case as to whether the second complainant is a consumer within the meaning and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the basis of admitted facts of the case noticed above, the second complainant did not hire services of opposite party for consideration. It was only the first complainant who had lodged the documents of title of the second complainant to obtain additional loan facilities. The District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the second complainant had not hired or availed of services of opposite party for consideration. The State Commission was unduly swayed by the fact that the opposite party retained the title deeds for some time after declining the grant of the additional facilities to the first complainant. The State Commission has acted illegally in not adverting to and meeting the finding given by the District Forum that there was no consumer dispute. The State Commission has not given any reasoning to either distinguish or set aside the finding of the District Forum with respect to the aspect of the second complainant not being a consumer. Before a relief can be granted to a complainant, the State Commission has to consider and hold that the second complainant is a consumer. The State Commission has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in granting relief to the second complainant when second complainant was neither a consumer nor he had hired the services of the Bank for consideration which could entitle the second complainant to claim any relief what so -ever.