1. WE are proceeding to dispose of these appeals with a common order at the stage of their admission itself on consideration of the materials made available in the appeal paper books and on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants.
2. AS a matter of fact the appeals filed is not a proper remedy. The same has been filed against the interim order passed by the District Forum disposing the preliminary objection raised by and on behalf of the present appellants who are O.Ps. in both the complaints. However, we are not sticking up to the technicality and proceeding to thrash out both appeals. (For brevity''s sake appellants are hereinafter referred to as ''Bank'' and respondents as ''complainants'').
The Bank is the appellant in both the appeals which has taken exception to the order dated 27th August, 2002 passed by District Forum Pune in application moved by and on behalf of the Bank for dismissal of the complaints for want of jurisdiction which the District Forum has proceeded to reject the same and hence these appeals.
We perused the complaints wherein the factual aspects obtained is almost identical. In one complaint husband is the complainant and in another complaint wife of the complainant. It is noticed that both of them stood guarantors for certain loan transaction taken by some third party.
3. BOTH the complainants have filed the complaints alleging that they were subjected to harassment by the Bank when they acted as guarantors and hence they have claimed damages, compensation, etc.
On these backgrounds, Bank moved the applications before the District Forum Pune with a prayer that the complaints as filed would not be maintainable before the District Forum Pune since the claims therein would not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as consumer dispute and further there existed no relationship of consumer with them.
4. THE District Forum has proceeded to reject the same in its elaborate judgment, which is subjected to challenge in these appeals.
On face of it, it must be stated that the perception of the appellant-Bank that the nature of grievances made by the complainants would not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as a consumer dispute is not at all tenable.
It needs to be stated that Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines services and includes "Banking business". The advancement of loan is a prime activity of the Bank in the banking business and execution of loan agreement, furnishing of guarantee, all these form part and ancillary to the advancement of loan. Furnishing of guarantee for the borrower is also part of one of these steps.
5. THAT being so and considering the nature of transaction and series of steps which are required to be undertaken, we are of the view, the same would certainly be a banking business.
6. THEREFORE, rejection of the applications made by and on behalf of the appellants-Bank are proper, needing no interference.
We wish to add and clarify that the merit of the claim is another aspect and maintainability of the claim is a different aspect. Ultimately, party making the claim may succeed or fail. However, it would not be proper to deprive the complainants to have satisfaction of agitating the grievances before the District Forum.
The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that District Forum while rejecting the applications has proceeded to deal with and consider the merits of the issues. We wish to clarify that since the findings have been rendered by the District Forum on preliminary point of maintainability of the complaints and its jurisdiction, any observations concerning the merits, which appear in the judgment be taken as prima facie view of the Forum. ORDER 1. No merits. Both these appeals stand dismissed. 2. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties. Appeals dismissed.
