Today is fixed for admission hearing. Ld. advocate for the complainant is present case is taken up for admission hearing.

Hd. Ld. advocate for the complainant.

Perused the petition of complainant.

Complainant Sandhya Biswas Sujoy Biswas filed this case u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act-2019 against the OP namely Mr. Bachhu Das and another for the deficiency in service.

They alleged in the petition of complainant that aforesaid OP No. 1 and 2 borrowed an amount Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant on 11/01/2020 as per argument made in between the petitioners and Opposite parties.

Thereafter aforesaid OP return Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioners through cheques amounting Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively but those 2 cheques were bounced due to insufficient fund.

Thereafter petitioners sent a latter to the OP under registered with A/D post on 01/03/2022 and requested them to refund the aforesaid money amounting to Rs. 2,30,000/- but they did not refund the same.

          Hence the complainant files this case against the aforesaid OP praying for direction upon the OP to refund the aforesaid borrower amount ie to Rs. 2,30,000/-. They also prayed for other relives.

Perused the documents filed by the complainants. On perusal of the Xerox copy of document dt. 11/01/2020 we find that has mentioned therein that one Bachhu Das took cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Complainant No. 2 as personal loan with an undertaking that said loan will repaid within next three months. Said documents also contains the signature of complainant No. 2.

So apparently it can be said that complainant no. 2 and opposite party no. a both ate binding upon the said document.

As per the said document opposite party no. 1 took an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- only from the complainant no. 2 loan.  

Now the question comes before this commission that aforesaid disputes will come or not under the purview of deficiency of service.

Further question come before this commission the complainants will be treated as consumer or not and subject matter of the disputers are service or not.

The term consumer has been defined in section 2(7) of consumer protection Act 2019 and we have carefully gone through the same.

The term deficiency has been defined in section 2(11) of consumer protection Act 2019 and we have carefully gone through the same.

The term service has been defined in section 2(42) of consumer protection Act 2019 and we have carefully gone through the same.

We again gone through the petition of complaint in the light of aforesaid 3 definitions described in section 2(7), 2(11) and 2(42) of consumer protection Act 2019.

It is crystal clear before us that the present dispute individuals relating to borrow of an amount which was not refunded. Moreover parties to the dispute avails of such service for commercial purpose as such complainants will not be treated as consumers under the provision of section 2(7) of consumer Act 2019.

It is also crystal clear before us that non payment of loan amount and bounce of cheque are not the instance of deficiency of service in view of section 2(11) of the consumer protection Act 2019.

Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, in view of the discussion made above and in view of sec 2(7), 2(11), 2(42) and other provision of the consumer protection Act 2019 the present dispute cannot be entertained by this commission as consumer dispute because remedy his in other forum under other laws of the land.

According present consumer complaint is not fit for admission.

                   Hence

                                      It is

                                       Ordered

That the present complainant case vide no 67 of 2022 is not admitted and hence rejected.