ORDER NO. 03
DTD. 27.06.2022

Today is fixed for admission hearing Ld. Advocate for the compt is present. Case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard Ld, Advocate for the complainant.

Perused the petition of complaint.

Complainant Sandhya Biswas filed this case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Op namely Sujit Roy for the deficiency in service.

She alleged in the petition of complainant that aforesaid OP borrowed an amount of Rs 3,50,000 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) and Rs 4,28,000 (Rupees four lakh twenty eight thousand) from her as per the agreement dt 19.10.2020 made in between the petitioner and opposite party.

Thereafter aforesaid opposite party returned Rs 301000/- (Rupees three lakh one thousand) to the petitioners through 7 cheques amounting to Rs 48,000,Rs 50,000, Rs 50,000, Rs 13,000, Rs 40,000, Rs 50,000 and Rs 50,000  respectively but those 7 cheques were bounced due to insufficient fund.

Thereafter petitioner sent a letter to the opposite party under registered with A/D post on 01.03.2022 and requested him to refund the aforesaid money amounting to Rs 7,78,000 (Rupees Seven lakh Seventy Eight thousand only) but he did not refund the same.

Hence the complainant filed this case against the aforesaid opposite party praying for direction upon the opposite party to refund the aforesaid borrowed amount is Rs 7,78,000 (Rupees Seven lakh Seventy Eight thousand only). She also prayed for other reliefs.

We, perused the documents filed by the complainant. We also perused the Xerox copy of document dt 19.10.2020.

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

Further questions comes before this commission that complainant will be treated as consumer or not and subject matter of the disputes are deficiency of 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 2019and 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 definition 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 is the dispute between two individuals relating to borrow of Rs. 7,78,000 which was not refunded. Moreover parties to the dispute availed of such service for commercial purpose as such complainant will not be treated as Consumer under the provision of section 2(7) of Consumer Act 2019.

It is also crystal clear before us that non payment of amount and bounced 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 circumstances of this case and in view of the discussion made above and in view of section 2(7),2(11), 2(42) the present dispute cannot be entertained by this commission as consumer dispute because remedy lies in other forum under other laws of the land.

According present consumer complaints is not fit for admission.

                                    Hence,

                                                It is
                                                                        Ordered

         that the present complaint case vide no 68 of 2022 is not admitted and hence rejected.