1. Counsel for the petitioners present. This order shall decide two Revision Petitions. The facts and Law question entailed in both these cares are similar.
2. In the first case, M/s Unnati Parboiling Industries, the complainant in lts own land had applied for the loan for establishing the unit in the name of M/s Unnati Rice Mill. The State Bank of India, the OP sanctioned a loan in the sum of Rs.85,00,000/- as term loan. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:-
"1. To direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as
compensation from the OPs.
2. The complainant may also be awarded the amount of Rs.1,45,705/- as
the additional interest taken by the OPs.
3. Rs.1,00,000/- may be awarded for deficiency in service, unfair trade
practice and for mental harassment.
4. Cost of the suit and any other relief which the Hon''ble Forum deems
fit may also be awarded".
3. The second case was filed because the petitioner took the loan for establishing the unit in the
name of M/s Unnati Rice Mills. The State Bank of India sanctioned the loan amount to the
complainant in the sum of Rs.65,00,000/- as term loan and Rs.60,00,000/- for cash credit limit. In
this way, a total sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- loan amount was sanctioned. The second complaint was
filed with the following prayers:-
"1. To direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as
compensation from the OPs.
2. The complainant may also be awarded the amount of Rs.1,51,131/- as
the additional interest taken by the OPs.
3. Rs.1,00,000/- may be awarded for deficiency in service, unfair trade
practice and for mental harassment.
4. Cost of the suit and any other relief which the Hon''ble Forum deems
fit may also be awarded".
5. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant does not come under the category of Consumer because the complainant had obtained commercial loan and dismissed the appeals.
6. We find that the finding given by the State Commission cannot be faulted. This view is supported by a number of authorities.
7. In Timbor Home Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India , Civil Appeal No. 9685 of 2014 decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 08.10.2014. As a matter of fact, the Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the order passed by the National Commission on 21.05.2014, attained the finality.
8. The second case in reference is Samrendra Nath Singh Diljan Vs. State Bank of India , Civil Appeal No. 3107 of 2015, decided by the Apex Court on 16.03.2015, wherein the order passed by the National Commission was upheld and the appeal was dismissed in limine.
9. Again, in Subhash Motilal Shah (HUF) (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Malegaon Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. , Civil Appeal No. 39200 of 2013, wherein the current account opened for the Commercial purposes and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.01.2014, upholding the order of this Bench.
10. There is one more case in reference, i.e, M/s Sam Fine O Chem Limited Versus Union Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 7141 of 2013, wherein by passing a very lengthy order, the Appex Court dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the National Commission on 19.08.2013.
11. No merit. Both the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
