JUDGMENT R. K. Mahajan, J.
1. We have heard Sri P. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sarita Singh learned standing counsel.
2. This case arises out of the following facts as revealed from the record including order of the Consumer Forum.
2.1. It appears that respondent No. 2 applied for a loan of Rs. 40.000 for the purpose of installing an electrical tube-well from Prathma Bank/Syndicate Bank. According to the Consumer Forum, Syndicate Bank did not appeal before it. Junior Engineer of the Block appeared before the Consumer Forum and made it clear that Rs. 17,000 is required for installation of the electrical tube-well and boring work is to be done free of charges.
Syndicate Bank did not file any reply. The petitioner, Prathma Bank denied that there was any scheme with it to grant loan upto Rs. 40,000. The Consumer Forum considering the facts ordered for grant of the loan of Rs. 17.000 after completing all the formalities.
2.2 The scheme was in connection with installation of tube-well by him for agricultural purposes. At the time of such scheme, the bank was associated with the Government and promised to look to the welfare of the poor persons in advancing loans. In the instant case the Block Development Officer also recommended the necessary papers for grant of loan of Rs. 40.000. The Branch Manager of the bank has also made recommendation but the higher authorities of the Bank adopted dillydallying tactic and did not sanction the loan. Then. Smt. Dolli Agarwal. respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum after going through the records was of the view that there was deficiency of service on the part of the bank and ordered that Rs. 17,000 should be paid towards loan. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed by the bank-petitioner, instead of choosing the State Consumer Forum.
2.3. This writ petition has remained pending since 1990. It is not advisable now to relegate the petitioner to approach State Consumer Forum and we proceed to decide this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mr. Singhal has submitted that there is no relationship of consumer between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner as respondent No. 2 does not fall within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that mere opening of the account does not entitle the respondent No. 2 to take a loan.
4. Smt. Sarita Singh, learned standing counsel has supported the order of the Consumer Forum.
5. The Consumer Protection Act provides for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and matters connected therewith. We would like to also mention to the definition of the word 'service' as defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act which runs as follows ;
" "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service ;"
5.1. We now advert to the definition of the word 'deficiency' as contained under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, which runs as follows :
" "deficiency" means any fault, impression, shortcoming or Inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service ;"
5.2. We would also like to quote the definition of the word "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, which runs as follows :
" "Consumer" means any person who :
(i) buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and Includes any beneficiary of such services other than the' person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ;"
6. In view of the aforementioned provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, relationship of the consumer has been established when the account was opened and in fact the bank was to render service for consideration,
7. In our view, in a sponsored scheme when respondent No. 2 completed formalities and her case was recommended after depositing some amount as security, it was definitely negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 to render service in not advancing loan. Respondent No. 2 cannot eat its own words and resile from giving a loan in pursuance of the scheme and petitioner cannot sit tight over the matter. It is also unfortunate and we do not appreciate such an attitude on the part of the banking authorities who are public authorities and they should behave in a responsible and prudent manner. It was very unfair on the part of the banking institution to refuse loan to Smt. Dolli Agarwal after completing the necessary formalities of furnishing the security in Government sponsored scheme in which bank has also agreed to finance. In our view, respondent No. 2 should not have been deprived from the loan of the electrical pump for agricultural purposes. It was not a charity to get a loan which respondent No. 2 was seeking under the scheme.
8. We are of the considered view that there was defect in the service of bank and we do not want to disturb the finding of fact by exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The petition is dismissed accordingly.
9. Since the claimant has not appeared before us, we pass no order as to cost.