Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/48

Jagjit Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Capri Global Capital Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Chopra Adv.

01 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 24.01.2017

Date of Decision            :   ­­01.09.2021

 

1. Jagjit Kapoor s/o. L. Sh. Bansi Lal Kapoor,
2. Bharti Kapoor W/o. Sh. Jagjit Kapoor,
3. Kapoor International, all R/o. 3832, Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab-141117.

….. Complainants

                                                         Versus

1. Capri Global Capital Limited, SCO-16-17, 3^rd Floor, Pakhowal Road, Opposite Stock Exchange, Feroze Gandhi Market, Jila Kacheri area, Model Gram, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 through its Branch Manager/authorized Manager.
2.  Capri Global Capital Limited, Regd./A.D. Office: 502, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park,Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 E-mail: -

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    Complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Sh. C.S. Chopra, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainants is that they were approached by the official of the OPs in the month of November 2017 for taking over the loan which the complainants had availed from Karvy and further enhancement of the said loan. After detail discussions, the officials of the OPs told the complainants that all the formalities with regard to execution of the documents relating to foreclosure of the loan with Karvy would be performed by them and the complainants need not to bother about the same. Thereafter, the officials of the OPs got some forms signed from the complainants, but the columns were not filled. The officials of the OPs further told the complainants that insurance premium of Rs.20,000/.- would be charged from the complainants for securing the loan. A cheque of Rs.5900/- was also obtained from the complainants as processing fee and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was further collected by the officials of the OPs for doing the paper work. The officials of the OPs also obtained several cheques from the complainants. Thereafter, the OPs started deducting EMI amount even though the loan had not been paid and one installment of Rs.7238/- was deducted towards the loan account No.LNCGCLURTL0000007910 and a notice was sent for deduction of the next installment by 10^th of February. Thereafter, the OPs again applied for deduction of EMI. As there was no balance in the account, the EMI cheque bounced and charges of Rs.944/- were deducted from the account of the complainants on four different dates. On 05.02.2018, the complainants received policy insurance from TATA AIG on which a premium of Rs.34,000/- was charged. The act of the OPs in charging insurance policy premium and deducting the EMIs without disbursing the loan is illegal. The complainants received sanctioned letter in which the processing fee mentioned was very exorbitant which was much more than the complainants were initially told. All these acts on the part of the OPs caused acute mental tension and harassment to the complainants and the same also amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part. A legal notice dated 09.02.2018 was served on the OPs, but to no avail and the OPs did not refund the amount of Rs.7238/- deducted as EMI nor the amount of Rs.8844/- was refunded. In the end, it has been requested that the Ops be directed to pay Rs.2,71,082/- to the complainants.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainants tender affidavit Ex. CA of complainant Jagjit Kapoor along with documents Annexure-A to Annexure-F and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainants and have also gone through record very carefully.

5.                Perusal of the complaint and the documents relied upon by the complainants reveal that the complainant No.1 and 2 are running a firm under the name and style of Kapoor International. The loan applied by the complainants is referred to as M.S.M.E. term loan which means that the loan was intended to be taken by the complainants for the purpose of running Micro Small Medium Entrepreneur Thus, loan obviously was to be obtained for commercial purpose. Nowhere in the complaint, it has been mentioned by the complainants that they intended to avail the loan for the purpose of earning their livelihood. No detail of the business being run by the complainants under the name and style of Kapoor International has been given. In these circumstances, the complainants cannot be said to be the consumers in terms of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down in M/s. Narayana Traders Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited Consumer Complaint No.145 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 whereby Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that if the services of the bank were hired or availed for commercial purposes, the complainants are not the consumers as defined in Consumer Protection Act. In this very case, there is a reference to another case titled as M/s. Sam Fine O Chem Limited Vs. Union Bank of India, C.C.No.39 of 2013, decided on 12-04-2013.  In the said case also, it has been noted that if the complainant had availed credit facility service from the bank for expansion of his manufacturing activity, which was a commercial purpose, the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer given under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. In the light of law laid down in the afore cited cases, we are of the considered view that in the instant case also, the complainants do not fall within the definition of the consumers as loan in question sought to be availed from the OPs was for a commercial purpose.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                         (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:01.09.2021

Gobind Ram.