JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            M/s Sridhanada Laboratories, a registered partnership firm through its partner Sri Rajaram Reddy had filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank in respect of a loan account opened by the firm with the bank with a view to avail of cash credit facility, letter of credit and bank guarantees. The prayer in the complaint is reproduced as under:

a.         Award an amount of Rs.1,47,24,785/- which is withdrawn from the account of the Partnership firm between 13.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 and

b.         Award an amount of Rs.1 crore as loss of business  opportunity.

c.         Award an amount of Rs.2 crores as mental agony

d.         Award an amount of Rs.10 lakhs for cost of the proceedings.

e.         Award interest at the rate of 24% per annum on A to C from 01.02.2013 till actual payment.

f.          It is also prayed to pass any other order / orders to which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainants and in the interest of justice””.

2.         The notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party for today’s hearing i.e. 09.05.2016.  The opposite party,  however, has failed to appear despite of service of notice.  Thus, the opposite party has been proceeded ex parte.

3.         From the allegations in the complaint, it prima facie appears that complainant firm is not a “consumer” as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) and, therefore, its locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint is suspect.

4.         We have heard learned counsel for the complainant on the issue of maintainability.  Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that although the complainant had availed of services of the opposite party bank by obtaining a loan account for taking various credit facilities by furnishing collateral security, yet it cannot be said that complainant  had availed of those services for any connected commercial activity.  It is argued that dispute between the parties arose after 20.11.2012 when the complainant addressed letter dated 20.11.2012 to the opposite party calling for the release of the original documents of title pertaining to collateral security stating that there was no outstanding against the loan account and the opposite party failed to release the original title deeds.  It is contended that bank also committed deficiency in service by having entered into transactions in the loan account on the behest of two partners of the firm even after the complainant had requested the bank vide its letter dated 12.12.2012 not to sanction any adhoc limits or to issue letter of credit and also to refrain from permitting any operations in the over draft account.  In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 (2005) CPJ 27 (NC)  

5.         Now the question is whether the complainant has hired or availed of services of the opposite party for commercial purpose?

6.         It is undisputed that complainant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in bulk drugs and chemicals.  In para 3 of the complaint, it is specifically alleged that complainant firm in course of its business approached the opposite party bank seeking credit facilities such as cash credit facility, letter of credit and issue of bank guarantees against the hypothecation of stocks as also the collateral i.e. mortgage of the title deeds of the factory premises as also the residential plots belonging to  some of the partners and for that purpose, the loan account, which is subject matter of this complaint was opened.  From this, it is obvious that complainant had availed of services of the opposite party for a commercial purpose i.e. to further its business  of manufacturing and trading in bulk drugs and chemicals. Thus, in view of inbuilt section in the definition of  “consumer”, as given in section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the complainant is excluded from the definition of “consumer”.

7.         The complainant has tried to wriggle out of this situation by relying upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of M/s Harsolia Motors ( supra). We have carefully gone through the judgment.  In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.  In the said case, the Coordinate Bench was of the view that even giving the wide meaning of the words “ For Commercial Purpose”, it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit.  The Coordinate Bench was of the view that the person who takes the insurance policy to cover the future risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose and the policy is only for indemnification of the actual loss.  It is not intended to generate profit.  In the instant case, admittedly, services of the bank were availed to get credit facilities, which in our view,  is directly related to permission of the business.  Therefore, in our view M/s Harsolia Motor’s judgment is of no avail to the complainant.

8.         In view of the discussion above, the complainant has availed of services of the opposite party bank for commercial purpose.  As such, complainant firm is excluded from the definition of term “consumer”.  As the complainant is not consumer, it has no locus standi to file the complaint before the consumer forum.  The complaint is accordingly rejected.  Complainant shall be at liberty to avail of his remedy by approaching appropriate forum having jurisdiction.