The Patna High Court has set aside the Central Bank of India’s rejection of a compassionate-appointment claim by the married son of a deceased Safai Karamchari, made on the sole ground that he was married. The Court held that the Bank’s own scheme defines a ‘dependent family member’ as a ‘wholly dependent son’ without the word ‘unmarried’, and that the Bank cannot supplement that self-contained definition by importing ‘unmarried’ from other regulations or policies.
The Supreme Court ruled that a borrower does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if the loan is taken for profit-making purposes. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra made this observation while hearing an appeal by the Central Bank of India against a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The ruling clarifies the scope of consumer rights in financial transactions.
