Order No. 2 date: 17-03-2020

Record is put up today for passing order regarding admissibility of this case.

The case of the Complainant, in short, is that, for business purpose, he was looking for loan from a financial institution.  Based on the discussion held between the parties, the OPs agreed to sanction a loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- to him.  Accordingly, as per the advice of the OP No. 3, he liquidated his previous loan and also deposited service charges to the tune of Rs. 11,918/- (Rs. 5,900 + Rs. 6,018) with the OP No. 1.   Subsequently, he received messages from the OP No. 1 asking him to pay Rs. 94,062/- and Rs. 1,66,020/- towards EMI for the months of March and April, 2019, respectively.  Perplexed over such unwarranted demands from the OP No. 1 without disbursement of a single penny towards the sanctioned loan amount, he approached another financial company for getting loan.  However, to his utter dismay, the said company refused to sanction necessary loan to him on the plea that his name figured in the CIBIL on account of alleged non-payment of EMI amounting to Rs. 93,503/- to the OP No. 1.  In such circumstances, he filed the instant case. 

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and perused the documents on record.

Admittedly, the Complainant courted the OPs for availing of financial assistance from them for business/commercial purpose.  No such averment is made anywhere in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that the Complainant is running his business for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  In fact, the nature and volume of business has not been disclosed, let alone furnishing any document to that effect.

Be that as it may, in view of the commercial angle involved in the matter, the Complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. 

Further, it appears that the Complainant so far paid only a sum of Rs. 11,918/- to the OP No. 1. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that due to arbitrary act of the OPs, the Complainant suffered mental stress and agony, however, in the overall construct, it does not justify staking a whooping claim of Rs. 99,00,000/- as compensation. 

As such, we decline to admit this case. As a result, the case stands dismissed.  The Complainant shall, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of his grievance.