Consumer deficiency claim fails where borrower admits non-repayment was due to market slump, not bank's disbursement default.

A consumer complaint for deficiency in service based on alleged partial loan disbursement could not be sustained where the borrower's own admission showed non-repayment arose from a slump in the market for finished goods rather than the bank's default. Mere institution of a recovery suit by the bank did not, by itself, bar examination of the complaint, and a defaulting borrower could still allege deficient disbursement in an appropriate case. On the facts, however, the admission undermined the claim and left no basis for interference with dismissal of the complaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint for deficiency in service arising out of partial disbursement of loan could succeed despite the petitioners' default in repayment and their own admission that non-payment was due to market slump.

Analysis: The Court held that mere filing of a recovery suit by the bank did not, by itself, bar examination of the consumer complaint, and that a borrower's default may, in an appropriate case, still be linked to alleged non-disbursement by the bank. However, the petitioners' own letter and case showed that their inability to repay was attributed to slump in the market for the finished goods, not to deficiency in service by the bank. That admission undermined the consumer claim and furnished no ground for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and no interference with the dismissal of the complaint was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The consumer complaint was not revived, and the dismissal of the special leave petition left the rejection of relief undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A consumer claim based on alleged deficient disbursement cannot be sustained where the complainant's own admission attributes non-repayment to commercial market conditions rather than to the service provider's default.

---