RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 66 OF 2018
01.M/s Jan Utkarsha Patrika
Proprietor Ishwari Kumar Dwivedi
S/o Udaibhan Dwivedi
02.Smt. Gauravi Dwivedi
W/o Ishwari Kumar Dwivedi
03.Smt. Indira Pandey
W/o Sri Pankaj Pandey
All R/o House No.232
Awadhpuri-2, Khargapur
Lucknow
...Complainants
Vs.
Corporation Bank
Aliganj Branch
Lucknow
Through Branch Manager
...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Ms. Rashmi Rajvanshi holding brief of Sri
Gyan Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 12-04-2019
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Present complaint has been filed by complainants M/s Jan Utkarsha Patrika, Smt. Gauravi Dwivedi and Smt. Indira Pandey against Corporation Bank, Branch Aliganj, Lucknow under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before this State Commission seeking following reliefs:-
‘’ अत: माननीय फोरम/न्यायालय से विनम्र निवेदन है कि न्याय के हित में शिकायतकर्तागण के विरूद्ध विपक्षी द्वारा की जा रही अवैधानिक कार्यवाही, जैसाकि उपरोक्त के पैरा 1 व 3 में लिखित
:2:
है, को निरस्त करने की कृपा करें, स्टेटमेन्ट आफ एकाउन्ट दिलाये जाने की कृपा की जाये, दौरान मुकदमा विपक्षी द्वारा की जा रही शिकायतकर्तागण के विरूद्ध कार्यवाही को क्रमश: स्थगित/निष्पादित करने रोकने की कृपा करें तथा मुकदमें का खर्च मुबलिग 10,000/- रूपये विपक्षी से शिकायतकर्तागण को दिलाये जाने की कृपा करें व अन्य कोई अनुतोष जो माननीय फोरम शिकायतकर्तागण के पक्ष में उचित समझे आदेशित करने की कृपा करें।‘’
As per complaint it has been contended by complainants that a working capital demand loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was obtained by complainants from opposite party Corporation Bank, Aliganj Branch, Lucknow. The complainants made some payments against said loan. Even then in a publication made in news paper dated 12-12-2017 Rs.31,84,000/- has been shown due against complainants on 30-10-2017. It has been further contended that statement of account was not furnished to complainants.
In complaint it has been further stated by complainants that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and has charged interest in an arbitrary manner.
I have heard learned Counsel Ms. Rashmi Rajvanshi holding brief of Sri Gyan Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the complainants.
The averment made in complaint clearly indicates that the loan account taken by complainants is a commercial loan. As such the complainants are not consumers as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
This view finds support from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Union Bank of India and another V/s M/s Learning Spiral Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 2018(3) CPR 587 (NC).
Learned Counsel for the complainants has referred judgment of
:3:
Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Union Bank of India V/s Manoj Gupta and another reported in II(2012) CPJ 266 (NC).
I have perused the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the complainants carefully and respectfully. Present judgment cited by learned Counsel for the complainants is not helpful to complainants on the facts of present complaint. As mentioned above the complaint has been filed for redressal of grievance arising out of loan account which has been taken for commercial purpose. As such the complainants are not consumers as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of above complaint filed by complainants is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As such the complaint is dismissed.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
