State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Khadi & Village Industries Commission vs M/S Fresh Milk Products on 17 July, 2025
SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025
& Vs.
SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND
Bank of Baroda
Vs.
M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 14.10.2020
Date of Final Hearing: 10.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025
SC/5/A/112/2020
Khadi & Village Industries Commission
Head Office: Mumbai
State Office: General Mahadev Singh Road, Kanwali, Dehradun
Through State Director Sh. Ram Narayan S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram
State Director KVIC GMS Road, Kanwali, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate)
Rectified vide order dated 21.07.2025 (Through: Sh. Ravinder Singh,
Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. M/s Fresh Milk Products
Through Prop. Sh. Navneet Kumar S/o Sh. Pahal Singh
R/o House No. 43, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
.....None for Respondent No. 1
2. Dena Bank (at present Bank of Baroda)
Through Branch Manager,
Branch Haridwar Kankhal, Jwalapur Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
3. Dena Bank (at present Bank of Baroda)
Through Asst. General Manager
Circle Office, First Floor, Paras Tower, Saharanpur Road,
Majra, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Anurag Nautiyal, Advocate)
.....Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
AND
Date of Institution: 10.09.2020
Date pof Final Hearing: 10.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025
1
SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025
& Vs.
SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND
Bank of Baroda
Vs.
M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
SC/5/A/116/2020
Bank of Baroda
Through its Branch Manager Himani Kukreti W/o Mr. Piyush Kukreti
Bank of Baroda, Arya Nagar, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
(Through: Sh. Anurag Nautiyal, Advocate)
....Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s Fresh Milk Products
Through its Proprietor Navneet Kumar S/o Mr. Pahal Singh
R/o House No. 43, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar
2. Mr. Navneet Kumar S/o Mr. Pahal Singh
R/o House No. 43, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar
.....None for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
These appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 have been directed against judgment and order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 22 of 2019 styled as M/s Fresh Milk Products Vs. Dena Bank and Ors., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed. The opposite parties are hereby restrained from recovering any amount of "interest" from the complainant on the sanctioned loan amount. Further, they are also restrained from proceeding with the auction of the 2 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
complainant's property. In addition, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, and ₹10,000/- towards litigation expenses and advocate fees. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of this order. In case of failure to comply with this direction within the stipulated period, 6% interest rate per annum shall be paid on the abovementioned amount from date of filing of this complainant till the date of actual payment.
2. As both the appeals have arisen from the same judgment and order dated 17.07.2020, therefore, it is just, proper and appropriate to decide them together for the sake of convenience. For convenience, the parties in present matter are hereinafter referred to as per their position held in the consumer compliant.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that motivated by the scheme for self-employment, the complainant established an enterprise under the name "M/S Fresh Milk Products" and sought a loan of ₹25,00, 000/- from Opposite Party No. 1. Out of this, an initial installment of ₹2,00,000/- was disbursed on 03.01.2014, followed by a second installment of ₹3,00,000/- on 27.06.2014. Additionally, the complainant deposited ₹1,25,000/- as margin money from his own resources, bringing the total to ₹6,25,000/-. The installment of the loan was to be deducted from the saving bank account No. 119110023759 of the complainant. An amount of ₹53,144/- was deducted by the Opposite Party No. 3 on dated 30.04.2014 towards first installment of the loan. Subsequently, on 08.01.2015, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a letter highlighting certain discrepancies, to which the complainant submitted his 3 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
response on 22.01.2015. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 issued a letter on 03.09.2019 regarding auction proceedings to recover the dues. The complainant has further submitted that, as per the guidelines issued by Opposite Party No. 3, no interest was payable on the said loan; therefore, the auction of his property is unjustified and cannot be carried out. It is also contended that the complainant has already repaid a sum of ₹3,50,000/- against the total loan disbursement of ₹5,00,000/- made by Opposite Party No. 1. The complainant asserts that the Opposite Parties have no lawful authority to forcibly take possession of his property. Accordingly, the present complaint has been filed.
4. A joint written statement was filed by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, wherein they admitted that the complainant had availed the loan facility.
5. Opposite party No. 3, in its written statement submitted that the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" in relation to opposite party no. 3, and therefore, there exists no consumer-service provider relationship. Consequently, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act do not apply to opposite party no. 3, and the complaint against it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party no. 3 further submitted that, in the present case, Khadi and Village Industries, Dehradun, was only responsible for providing margin money to the complainant, while the balance loan amount was to be provided by the bank. It was further contended that the complainant failed to establish the unit as per the scheme requirements, and at the time of inspection, the unit was found non-operational. As a result, the margin money (subsidy) could not be released to the complainant. Therefore, it was argued that the complainant cannot file any complaint against opposite party no. 3 before 4 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
this forum regarding the margin money. Therefore, in accordance with law, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as it is barred under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The opposite party no 3 has denied the factual assertions made in the complaint through its objections, and has further submitted that opposite party no. 3 does not have any branch in Haridwar district. Consequently, the complaint against opposite party no. 3 is not maintainable.
6. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 17.07.2020 in the above terms.
7. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the District Commission, the First Appeal No. 112 of 2020 has been preferred by the opposite party No. 3 - Khadi & Village Industries Commission as appellant and another First Appeal No. 116 of 2020 has been preferred by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 - Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) as appellant. For the sake of convenience First Appeal No. 112 of 2020 being treated as the leading / main appeal.
8. In First Appeal No. 112 of 2020, the appellant has stated to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2020, to award costs of the appeal in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the complainant does not qualify as a 'consumer' and no consumer dispute exists between the parties, as specifically pointed out in the objections and noted in paragraph 4 of the judgment. Furthermore, the impugned judgment 5 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
is contrary to the provisions of the Public Money Recovery Act, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, and the SARFAESI Act. The Forum has failed to appreciate the absence of a consumer-service provider relationship, thereby rendering the judgment erroneous. Accordingly, it is prayed that the judgment and order dated 17.07.2020 be quashed, Complaint No. 22 of 2019 (M/S Fresh Milk Product vs. Dena Bank & Others) also be dismissed with costs, and appropriate consequential orders be passed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-OP No.3 also relied upon the judgment and order dated 17 September 2024 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 660/2023.
9. In First Appeal No. 116 of 2020 the appellant has stated to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar. He further argued that the learned District Commission has failed to exercise proper judicial application of mind while passing the impugned order and erred in not appreciating that the preponderance of probabilities lay in favour of the Appellant. Furthermore, the learned District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the matter despite the express bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which overrides the jurisdiction conferred by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, thereby rendering the proceedings entirely without jurisdiction. The learned District Commission also erred in concluding that only the subsidy component was interest-free, even though no such subsidy was ever disbursed to the Respondents due to their failure to comply with the sanctioned terms, thus making them fully liable to repay the entire loan amount along with interest as agreed. Additionally, the learned District Commission overlooked the fact that the case involves public funds, and allowing the Respondents to evade payment of interest is 6 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
not only against public interest but also contrary to law. The learned District Commission further ignored the settled legal position that, in the event of default, the Appellant Bank is entitled under the SARFAESI Act to take possession and sell the mortgaged property for recovery of outstanding dues. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant, which is an essential condition for maintaining a consumer complaint. Moreover, the learned District Commission failed to consider or record the pleadings and submissions duly filed by the Appellant. The impugned judgment and order have been passed in violation of the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, and are based on a misconceived and erroneous application of law and facts, rendering them bad in law and unsustainable, particularly in view of the jurisdictional bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP Nos. 1 and 2 also relied upon the judgment and order dated 21 October 2020 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 149/2020.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in First Appeal No. 112 of 2020 and perused the impugned judgment and order. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant. A perusal of the record reveals that notices have been duly served upon the respondents of the both appeals and vide order dated 10.07.2025, an order was passed in First Appeal No. 112 of 2020 to proceed the appeal ex-parte against the respondent No. 1 and vide order dated 10.07.2025 an ex-parte order against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was passed against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in First Appeal No. 116 of 2020.
11. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence on record, and arguments advanced, the following points arise for determination:
7SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
i. Whether the District Commission erred in restraining the opposite parties from recovering any amount towards "interest" on the sanctioned loan from the complainant;
ii) Whether the learned District Commission erred in restraining Opposite Party No. 1 from proceeding with the auction of the complainant's property;
iii) Whether Opposite Party No. 3 qualifies as a "consumer" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in First Appeal No. 112 of 2020.
12. The findings of the points of determination are as under:-
Point 1 - Whether the District Commission erred in restraining the opposite parties from recovering any amount towards "interest" on the sanctioned loan from the complainant:-
Upon examining the records before us, it is evident that Opposite Party No. 1 sanctioned a term loan of ₹23.75 lakh to the complainant for the purchase of plant, machinery, and building, to establish a unit for manufacturing milk products and poly packaging. The total project cost was ₹25 lakh, out of which ₹23.75 lakh was financed by OP1 and ₹1.25 lakh was contributed by the promoter. Additionally, the complainant was entitled to a subsidy of ₹8.75 lakh, which was sanctioned and released by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) under the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). The sanctioned loan was to be disbursed by OP1 in installments, which was duly carried out. OP1 disbursed ₹5 lakh in two installments: ₹2 lakh on 30.01.2014 and ₹3 lakh on 27.06.2014. The remaining ₹18.75 lakh was intended for the purchase of plant and machinery as per the terms stipulated in the sanction note (Paper Nos. 32 and 33 of First Appeal No. 116 of 2020). However, 8 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
instead of procuring the required plant and machinery, the complainant submitted a job work invoice to OP1 (Paper No. 45 of First Appeal No. 116 of 2020), which was contrary to the sanctioned loan conditions. As a result, OP1 did not release the balance loan amount. The total project cost of ₹25 lakh included a subsidy component of 35%, i.e., ₹8.75 lakh, provided by OP3 (KVIC) under PMEGP. According to paragraph 10 of the PMEGP scheme guidelines (Paper No. 38 of First Appeal No. 112 of 2020), the subsidy amount released to the financing bank was to be held as a Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) in the beneficiary's name (the complainant) for three years, without any interest payable on the TDR, and no interest was to be charged on the equivalent loan amount.OP3 disbursed the subsidy amount of ₹8.75 lakh, which was duly deposited with the financing bank. However, during a physical inspection conducted on 01.04.2017 (Paper Nos. 17 & 18 of First Appeal No. 112 of 2020), it was found that the unit was non-functional. Consequently, OP3 requested OP1 to refund the subsidy amount through a letter dated 24.08.2017 (Paper No. 30 of First Appeal No. 112 of 2020), and OP1 refunded the subsidy on 06.09.2017 (Paper No. 31 of First Appeal No. 112 of 2020). Since the unit was found non-operational and had violated the terms and conditions of the scheme, it cannot claim the benefit of interest exemption on the subsidy amount once it was withdrawn by KVIC. The subsidy is meant to be adjusted only after completion of the lock-in period, and only upon fulfillment of all stipulated conditions. Until then, the subsidy remains the property of KVIC/Government, and the beneficiary has no legal entitlement to it. Therefore, given the complainant's failure to comply with the loan terms and the non-functioning of the unit leading to the withdrawal of the subsidy, OP1 was justified in charging interest on the loan amount already disbursed to the complainant.
9
SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025
& Vs.
SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND
Bank of Baroda
Vs.
M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
Point 2 - Whether the learned District Commission erred in restraining Opposite Party No. 1 from proceeding with the auction of the complainant's property:-
The term loan granted to the complainant was secured by creating a mortgage over his immovable property. Due to the complainant's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan and his default in repayment of the installments, the loan account was classified as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA). Consequently, Opposite Party No. 1 issued a legal notice on 27.07.2017 (Paper No. 46 of First Appeal No. 116 of 2020), demanding repayment of the entire outstanding amount. Despite receiving this notice, the complainant failed to make the requisite payments, prompting OP1 to initiate recovery proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), including commencing of auction proceedings for the mortgaged property. However, these auction proceedings could not be concluded as OP1 was restrained by an order of the District Commission. In its pleadings, OP1 argued that, as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, civil courts -- including consumer forums
-- are barred from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning matters governed by the Act. OP1 further relied on the judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 149/2020, Bank of Baroda v. Aas Mohammad & Others, decided by this Commission on 21.10.2022, wherein it was held in paragraph 8 as under:
Para 8: "Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal and others reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 895 SC, has held that the civil court jurisdiction is completely barred so far as the "measure" taken by a secured creditor under sub-
section (4) of Section 13 of Securitization and 10 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, against which an aggrieved person has a right of appeal before the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal, to determine as to whether there has been any illegality in the "measures" taken. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Virendra Rai reported in II (2013) CPJ 337 (NC), has held that the Civil Court or Forum cannot interfere in the proceeding initiated under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. Hon'ble National Commission by judgment and order dated 25.11.2013 passed in Revision Petition No. 1653 of 2013; M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Hardayal Singh, has held that the case pertains to SARFAESI Act, 2002 and neither the District Forum nor the State Commission had jurisdiction to try the case. In the said decision, Hon'ble National Commission has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2013; Yashwant G. Ghaisas and others Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"The appellants challenged the action of the bank by filing a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the 1986 11 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
Act'). The National Commission referred to Section 34 of the 2002 Act whereby jurisdiction of all Courts and authorities to entertain challenge to the action taken by the bank has been ousted and dismissed the complaint by recording the following observations:
The National Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself the powers which come within the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals. This matter is purely covered with the jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT. If there is any grievance against the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act that should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority. It is well settled that main creditor and the guarantors are equally responsible."
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers Consumer Commissions to adjudicate disputes relating to "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practices". In contrast, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides a special mechanism enabling banks and financial institutions to recover secured debts without court intervention. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act explicitly states: "No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under this Act." Though the term used is "civil court," it has been interpreted broadly to include other forums and authorities wherever exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In view of these above pronouncements, we fully concur with the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCDRC and hold that the judgment and order passed 12 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
by the learned District Commission, Haridwar, was beyond its jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable.
Point 3 - Whether opposite Party No. 3 qualifies as a "consumer" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in Appeal No. 112 of 2020?
Opposite Party No. 3 (OP3) is a statutory body constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956, and is responsible for the promotion and development of village and cottage industries throughout the country. With the objective of generating employment through the establishment of micro-enterprises in both rural and urban areas, the Government of India, through the Ministry of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, launched the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). This scheme is implemented by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) -- in this case, OP3 -- in collaboration with State and District Industries Centres. Under PMEGP, eligible beneficiaries receive margin money assistance in the form of a subsidy. Notably, KVIC does not charge any fee from applicants nor does it provide any paid services. In the present matter, the complainant was granted margin money subsidy by OP3 to establish a unit for manufacturing milk products and poly packaging. However, the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the PMEGP scheme, resulting in the withdrawal of the subsidy by OP3. Since KVIC (OP3) does not charge any consideration or provide services for a fee, it does not fall within the definition of a "service provider" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and thus the complainant cannot be considered a "consumer." This legal position finds support in the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in F.A. No. 660/2023, K. 13 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
Murugesan vs. Regional Manager & Anr. and The Assistant Director decided on 17.09.2024, wherein paragraph 8 provides:
Para 8: "Admittedly, Government of India launched the scheme for motivation of self-employment generation as well as eradication of unemployment through the "Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme. Khadi & Village Industries Commission (the KVIC) is Nodal Agency at national level. State Khadi & Village Industries Board, District Industry Centres and the bank implement the scheme at the state level. Central Government and Khadi & Village Industries Commission provide the service/scheme 'free of charge' and the appellant is not a 'consumer' of opposite party no.2. This Commission, in Himachal Weavers Private Limited Vs. H.P. Financial Corporation, 1993 SCC OnLine NCDRC 116, RP/4894/2012 Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. Rewari Central Co-operative Bank (decided on 08.02.2013) and Canara Bank Vs. Piyush Tripathi, 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 601, held that beneficiary of government scheme is not a 'consumer' of the government."
Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines "consumer" as a person who buys any goods or hires or avails any services for a consideration paid or promised. It expressly excludes persons obtaining goods for resale or for commercial purposes (except when used 14 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
for self-employment to earn a livelihood). KVIC acts purely as a nodal agency and facilitator; it does not provide any direct service to applicants for consideration. The subsidy provided under PMEGP is a financial support measure of the government and does not constitute a "service" within the meaning of the Act. A fundamental requirement under the Consumer Protection Act is the payment of consideration for goods or services. In the context of PMEGP, no such consideration is paid by applicants to KVIC. The subsidy is a government grant, not a commercial service rendered for payment. The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble NCDRC in the above-cited case are fully applicable to the present dispute.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions and after careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the District Commission, Haridwar has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2020. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is, perverse and is thus infirm, illegal, and liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the First Appeal No. 112 of 2020 and First Appeal No. 116 of 2020 are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2020 is set aside. Consumer complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeals.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the 15 SC/5/A/112/20 Khadi & Village Industries Commission 17.07.2025 & Vs. SC/5/A/116/20 M/s Fresh Milk Products & Ors.
AND Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Fresh Milk Products & Anr.
parties. The copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
16. Appeal files be consigned to the record room alongwith a copy of this Judgment.
17. A copy of this judgment be kept in the connected First Appeal No. 116 of 2020.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. C.M. Singh) Member Pronounced on: 17.07.2025 16