State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Arun K.Sharma on 2 January, 2020
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 773 /2012.
State Bank of India,
Branch Shivpuri, (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. Arun Kumar Sharma
R/o Fatehpur Road,
Shivpuri (M.P.).
2. Shankar Khatik,
R/o Raeespura,
Shivpuri (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI HIMANSHU GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.
MS. SANGEETA MOHARIR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
- 2-
ORDER
(Passed on 02/01/2020) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J :
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri (for short the "Forum") in CC No.178/2011 the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the first respondent filed a complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") stating therein that the appellant (opposite party no.1) had financed to respondent no.2 (opposite party no.2) for purchase of bus No. MP 33 PO 193 and for securing the loan he the first respondent as a guarantor had mortgaged the documents of his house with the appellant - Bank. He also stated that he had given the guarantee of repayment of loan as he was having friendly relation with the respondent no.2. He further stated that as the respondent no.2 could not repay the instalments the appellant
- Bank started harassing the first respondent - guarantor by pressing for recovery of the amount from him. Feeling aggrieved the first respondent - guarantor filed a complaint case alleging deficiency in service by the appellant - Bank and seeking direction against the appellant - Bank not to harass him and to make him free from the guarantee.
3. The Forum after getting the reply from the appellant - Bank and the second respondent and after considering the evidence led by the parties vide
- 3- impugned order held that the appellant- Bank has committed error in proceeding for recovery against the first respondent - guarantor and directed to the appellant not to make recovery from the first respondent and also directed the appellant to return papers relating to the house mortgaged with them by the first respondent. Feeling aggrieved the appellant - Bank has filed this appeal.
4. Having gone through the pleadings and the evidence we are of the view that the complaint filed by the first respondent - guarantor against the Bank seeking the relief as stated here-in-above itself was not maintainable as the first respondent cannot be said to be covered under the term "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. Undisputedly the second respondent obtained loan from the appellant - Bank for the purchase of a bus. In regard to the loan transaction the first respondent - complainant was only a guarantor to the said loan amount. He in the capacity of guarantor has mortgaged his property as security of the loan with the Bank. This clearly indicates that he did not avail any services from the appellant - Bank. Mere providing a guarantee for repayment of loan will not bring the guarantor within the purview of definition of the term "consumer" so as to seek relief by filing a complaint case before the Forum.
5. In the circumstances, in our considered view the Forum has committed apparent error in allowing the complaint by treating the first respondent - guarantor to be covered under the definition of "consumer" as defined under the Act.
- 4-
6. As a result, we allow this appeal and dismiss the complaint holding it to be not maintainable. The impugned order stands set-aside.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik) (S.S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Phadke