G.D. Sharma, J. 1. M/s Supreme Surgicals is a registered firm and deals in the business of manufacturing of surgical cotton in Village Dharap, Block Purmandal, District Jammu and being a industrial unit was also registered on 22.10.2003 with the District Industries Centre Jammu. The said firm is also registered with the Registrar of firms under registration no. 6999/98 dated 6.4.98. The firm is being run by two partners namely, Sh. Narinder Jamwal and Sh. Anil Balgotra. It is alleged that they are unemployed educated youths and had installed this industrial unit. For its smooth working they approached the OP for the grant of loan which was sanctioned up to the limit of Rs. 21.95 lakhs. Against this loan the complainants have mortgaged their land measuring 13 kanals and 11 marlas as well as hypothecated the machinery. From the sanctioned loan of Rs. 21.95 lakhs an amount of Rs. 9,24,000/- was released in favour of the firm for the purchase of the machinery and the payment of the said amount was made in advance to M/s Bar Associates Delhi who had to supply the machinery. When the machinery was installed the remaining payment of the sanctioned loan was stopped. The case of the complainant is that the firm was entitled to the release of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,23,6000/- because the unit established by them could not be made fully functional and the firm has been undergoing losses. It is pleaded that this is deficiency in service because on the sanctioned loan the OP was entitled to charge the interest on the loan amount and this was a service to be rendered. 2. The OP has contested the claim and in the preliminary objections it was stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the industrial firm in question has been set up for commercial purposes and the functioning of the complainant firm was for manufacturing of surgical cotton to be sold in the open market commercially. It is stated that Rs. 9,24,000/- was paid in advance by the OP vide draft no. 980982 dated 26.5.2000 and the complainant firm had informed that the machinery shall be installed within three months from the date of the advance. It is stated that Rs. 9,24,000/- was paid in advance by the OP vide draft no. 980982 dated 26.5.2000 and the complainant firm had informed that the machinery shall be installed within three months from the date of the advance. After inordinate delay the complainants lifted the machinery partly in the month of November 2000 and partly in the month of March 2001 and they have failed to purchase one item listed at serial no. 7 valuing Rs. 1,30,000/- The price of this item was also covered under the advance payment made by the OP but that was not done. The complainants were asked to furnish the goods received and they informed that some of the machinery parts were reconditioned and second hand. The OP as per the prevalent practice does not finance for the purchase of second hand machinery and at the time of getting the loan sanctioned concealment of this fact was made. On 26.5.2001, explanation was sought from the complainant for this lapse but no satisfactory explanation was given. For this reason the balance amount of the sanctioned loan was not released and the petitioner firm also became a defaulter as it had not paid any installment for the liquidation of the released amount and their liability which had swelled upto Rs. 18,63,199.60. The firm has not honoured its commitment but has defrauded the OP and unnecessarily they have blocked the public money. On facts it is stated that the complainants are not a consumers and they have intentionally defrauded the OP by not honouring the commitment made at the time of getting the loan sanctioned. When it came to the knowledge of the OP that second hand and old machinery had been purchased the balance amount of loan was not disbursed and explanation was sought for dishonouring the agreement. It is a settled law that breach of a contract is not a consumer dispute and that sanctioning of financial or other aid or continuing of the same was a discretionary power on the part of a financer or the Industrial Development Corporation and refusal to sanction the financial aid in the bonafide exercise of discretion would not constitute deficiency. It was also pleaded that a financial institution which undertakes to provide loans necessarily will have considerable discretion in deciding whether an installment of loan should be released or not. 3. In support of the complaint Mr. It was also pleaded that a financial institution which undertakes to provide loans necessarily will have considerable discretion in deciding whether an installment of loan should be released or not. 3. In support of the complaint Mr. Narinder Jamwal and Mr. Anil Balgotra complainants have filed their affidavits. They have stated that they were educated unemployed youths and in order to derive livelihood they approached the OP, Financial Corporation, for financial assistance to set up under the name and style of M/S Supreme Surgicals. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the OP. 4. Heard the arguments. 5. Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants are educated unemployed youth and the unit was set up for creating means to live. When something is manufactured it has to be sold in the market and then only it can generate revenue. So an element of commercial activity cannot be ruled out, but it would not detract from the fact that matter essentially is of bread and butter for the manufacturers. So to dub every such activity purely as commercial to rob the loanee of "consumer" character as defined under sec. 2(d)(ii) of the Act would not be correct. Apart from that, lending of money by the scheduled banks or the financial institutions is a business transaction between the Bank/financial institutions and the customers, like the complainants in this case, are the consumers under the Act. This has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006(5) Supreme 561 (Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. v. Dr. B.N. Raman, wherein it has been held that financial institutions, like the OP in this case, do not lend money as charity. They claim and charge interest on the lendings. He has also referred case titled Someshwar Prasad Sinha v. Mithila Devi (III (2007) CPJ 2I9 (NC), where a question arose whether the respondent was a "consumer" as she had bought a printing press for commercial purpose. On examining the matter it was found that the respondent had taken loan for self-employment and therefore, was a consumer within the ambit of the Act. In another case 2006(2) Judicial Report Consumer 309(NC), titled Bank of India v. Chinmay Barik & Ors. referred to by learned counsel, the complainant had taken loan from Orissa State Financial Corporation. It was released to her by the Bank. In another case 2006(2) Judicial Report Consumer 309(NC), titled Bank of India v. Chinmay Barik & Ors. referred to by learned counsel, the complainant had taken loan from Orissa State Financial Corporation. It was released to her by the Bank. Then the unit became sick as the sanctioned "working capital" was not released. The complainant went to the State Commission for redressal of her grievance, which allowed his complaint. The matter went in appeal to the National Commission which, after examining the matter held "not honouring the commitment to release loan amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Banks". In 2003(21) JKJ 446 SBI v. Mushtaq Khan, the question before the Commission arose whether the loan advanced by a bank amounts to rendering of service, the answer was in affirmative. 6. The OPs have produced the following case law in support of their arguments:- 1991(1) Consumer Protection Reporter Page 1 -- M/s Oswal Fine Arts v. M/s HMT Madras. 7. In this case the complainant had purchased printing machine from the Opposite party which was found defective. The opposite party did not set right the defect nor did the pay him the cost and compensation. The matter went to the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi. They rejected the complaint on the ground that a person who obtains goods for commercial purpose is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression `consumer' by the definition contained in section 2 (1)(d)(i) 1997(S) CPR 115M/S Joginder Transport v. Punjab National Bank. 8. In this case a question arose for determination whether the claim of the complainant for calculating interest at the subsidized rates under the Debt Relief scheme of the Govt. of India for the victims of November 1984 riots could be decided by the Consumer Forum. It was held that the rural Debt Relief Schemes prepared by the Govt. of India cannot confer a status of consumer on the beneficiaries of the schemes. II (1996) CPJ 15 Mandal Plastic Industries & Ors v. The Bihar State Financial Corporation Patna. 9. In this case it has been held that loanee cannot be said to have hired the services of Financial Institution. Grant of loan and disbursal of amount loan is entirely a discretion of the lender Institution. The Borrower is not a consumer under the act. 9. In this case it has been held that loanee cannot be said to have hired the services of Financial Institution. Grant of loan and disbursal of amount loan is entirely a discretion of the lender Institution. The Borrower is not a consumer under the act. The relationship between the two parties is that of a creditor and debtor. II - 1992(1) CPR 314 Khanchand T Salwani v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation. 10. In this case the complainant had applied for loan to the OP Financial Corporation for setting up a business. The application was rejected consequent upon which the complainant approached State Consumer Commission Rajasthan. The matter was examined there and the Commission dismissed the complainant as not maintainable. The Commission held that the complainant was a business man and he had applied for grant of loan from the Rajasthan Financial Corp. for his business and therefore he is not a consumer. Herein reference was made to a decision of National Commission rendered in M/s Agarwal Dyeing Industries v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and others (First appeal No 2/91 decided on August 19, 1991) in which it was observed as under:- "We have already held in several cases that out of such a relationship a consumer dispute cannot arise. The complaint therefore deserves to be rejected." 11. After considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the law cited at the Bar, we have no doubt in holding that the complainants who are unemployed youth had borrowed money from O.P. for running the industry in order to earn their livelihood. There is no evidence on record to hold that it was purely a loan of commercial nature. In this view of the matter, the contention of the OP that complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act is not legally tenable. Now the next question which falls for consideration and determination is whether the complainants are entitled to any relief or not. 12. The stand taken by the OP from the very beginning is that the complainants have duped it by purchasing second hand machinery and they have also committed default in the repayment of the instalments of the loan, as was agreed. That they have also not utilized the loan amount in the sum of Rs. 1.30 for purchase of machinery. 12. The stand taken by the OP from the very beginning is that the complainants have duped it by purchasing second hand machinery and they have also committed default in the repayment of the instalments of the loan, as was agreed. That they have also not utilized the loan amount in the sum of Rs. 1.30 for purchase of machinery. The complainants have not led any evidence of any nature to rebut these allegations. These are breaches of the contract and we are constrained to hold that in view of the breaches made by the complainants in the purchase of machinery as well as in proper utilization of loan and making any refund thereto do not make out a case for them. This Commission is not a money minting counter for such type of consumers. Here a consumer means only a bona fide consumer and nor a consumer who does not come with clear conscience and clean hands. 13. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the complaint is not maintainable, which is dismissed but without any order as to costs and is consigned to record.