Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-Bank and its functionaries in not sanctioning the enhanced credit limit and

-2-

not disbursing the amounts, the complainant company has filed this complaint, claiming a sum of around Rs.40.00 Crores for the loss and damages suffered by it due to the said deficiency in service.

          We have called upon the learned counsel to explain as to how the complainant company can invoke the original jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in particular in view of the definition of the ‘consumer’ appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as it stands today after the amendment by the Amendment Act No. 62 of 2002 effective from the 15^th of March, 2003.  The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the complainant company in this case falls within the ambit of ‘consumer’.  We have examined this question and going by the constitution of the complainant, the magnitude of the business and the purpose for which the complainant company availed the services of the opposite parties-Bank and assuming that the complainant company will be able to establish the averments and allegations made by it in the complaint one day, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable before a consumer fora because the services said to be availed by the complainant and rendered by the opposite  parties-Bank  were  purely  for  commercial purpose and no other

-3-

purpose.  That will take out the complainant from the purview of the said definition. 

In view of the above, present complaint before this Commission is wholly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.  However, the complainant company is at liberty to pursue it’s remedy before any competent court/tribunal in accordance with law.