08.12.2017
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
Instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order No. 4 dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. CC/449/2015 rejecting the complaint petition in limine.
The facts of the case, in brief, is that the Respondent/O.P. – Bank, on being approached by the Appellant/Complainant, sanctioned a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.500 lakh in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. the Appellant/Complainant, by virtue of this sanction, started doing business with the O.Ps after fulfilling all terms and conditions like furnishing primary security, collateral security of their fixed assets and property and making upfront payment of 1% + service tax towards processing charges.
The bank ultimately deducted in an unjustified and illegal manner an amount totaling to Rs.16,16,860/- in the form of misc. fees, processing charges, service tax and cess from the Respondent/O.P. Bank. The Appellant/Complainant had no option but to succumb before the bank because Complainant’s entire assets were hypothecated to the bank by way of collateral security.
The Respondent/O.P. Bank ultimately closed the cash credit account and thereafter released the security papers towards assets and property. The Respondent/O.P. Bank neither renewed credit facility nor closed the account after one year despite cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs.5 crore was paid.
Since there was no action on the part of the Respondent/O.P. Bank towards refund of the amount mentioned above unlawfully deducted in spite of legal notice followed by reminders, the aggrieved Appellant/Complainant had filed the complaint case before the Learned District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.
Heard the Learned Advocates appear on behalf of both sides.
The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the Ld. District Forum actually came to a wrong conclusion that a businessman applying for loan for his business should not be termed as consumer. A consumer, as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a person who hired any service for consideration.
The Ld. Advocate read out Section 2(i)(d) and (i)(o) in his effort to convince the Bench how the Ld. District Forum had misinterpreted the hiring of service of a person.
The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the Respondent/O.P. Bank resorted to unlawful trade practice through its arbitrary decision of conducting the claimed amount and prayed for the appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/O.P., per contra, submitted that the Appellant/Complainant, being a private limited company and holder of a current account, took the cash credit facility only for business. The purpose being a commercial one, the Consumer Fora had no authority to adjudicate the issue.
He, with his above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.
Perused the papers on record. The Appellant/Complainant, in his 3rd para of the complaint, admitted his doing business with the O.P./Bank by virtue of the cash credit facility sanctioned by the Bank in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. The Appellant/Complainant, by way of his own averment, established that the issues of the instant complaint was related to business, that is, for commercial purpose.
At para III of the Memo of Appeal, the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment based on a wrong conception that a businessman applying for a loan for his business cannot be considered as a consumer. In the said Memo of Appeal at para IV, the Appellant/Complainant went on to point out further that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that the business transaction between the Bank and consumers are within the meaning of Section 2(i)(d) (ii) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
It is not understandable how the Appellant/Complainant which is a private limited company maintaining a current account with the Respondent/O.P. Bank, inspite of admitting that the subject loan is related to his banking business, should plead the issues to be adjudicated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when there is no averment or evidence substantiating the fact that the said business is the sole means of his earning livelihood by way of self-employment.
We are afraid that we are unable to entertain the appeal which has no merit. The impugned order does not deserve any intervention from this Commission.
Hence, ordered, that the Appeal stands dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum. No order as to costs.
