DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.473 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  20.04.2018                                             Date of decision   :  04.07.2018

Western Education Society through its General Secretary Mr. Robin Aggarwal aged about 40 years son of Mr. M.P. Gupta c/o Learning Path School, Sector 67, Mohali, Punjab.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Allahabad Bank through its Area General Manager (AGM), Phase-IX, Mohali.

2.     Allahabad Bank through its General Manager (AGM), Phase-IX, Mohali.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Ramdeep Partap Singh, cl. for the complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, an education society claims that it is a non profitable society. Loan of amount of Rs.5.40 crores was sought from OPs against the guarantee given by Ms. Uma Gupta, the Executive Member and Mr. M.P. Gupta. That loan was sanctioned on 12.08.2014. Loan was to be paid back within 84 months with interest at bank rate plus 2% of the total amount per annum.  After availing of loan, complainant paid about 3-4 installments and realized that OP bank is charging higher rate of interest and as such letter of request dated 17.11.2016 was sent to OPs for reducing the rate of interest. OPs were disclosed as if HDFC bank is offering loan at lesser rate of interest. Ultimately loan was transferred from OP bank to HDFC bank after issue of sanction letter dated 05.12.2016. Complainant thereafter sent another letter dated 06.03.2017 to OP bank for claiming that there is no clause regarding pre-payment/take over charges and as such those should not be levied. However, complainant was astonished to receive letter dated 09.03.2017 from OP bank in which it was mentioned that pre-payment charges @ 2.5% of the outstanding amount are still pending against the complainant. It was claimed as if amount of Rs.10,92,527/- pending on account of pre-payment charges etc. Besides charges for conversion of interest rate of amount of Rs.2,68,482/- more claimed.  Claiming of these amounts alleged to be illegal and against the guidelines issued by RBI. After entering into correspondence through e-mails or otherwise and finding that OPs claiming illegal amount of Rs.10,20,757/-, this complaint filed for directing OPs to refund the excess received amount of Rs.10,20,757/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5.00 lakhs more claimed.

2.             Sufficient time for addressing arguments for admission purpose was granted. Vide orders dated 15.06.2018, it was disclosed to Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for complainant that complaint is not maintainable in view of law laid down in case titled as Jagrut Nagrik and Anr. Vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 111(2015) CPJ 1 (NC).  Again time was sought for addressing arguments. Last chance was granted for addressing arguments for preliminary hearing purpose for 04.07.2018, vide orders dated 15.06.2018. Despite that, adjournment was sought which was not allowed and as such after perusing the complaint and documents accompanying therewith, this complaint is being disposed of.

3.             Complainant in the complaint has relied on sanction letter dated 12.08.2014 regarding which copy produced as Annexure P-1. After going through Clause-3 of this sanction letter, it is made out that sanction of term loan of Rs.540.00 lacs granted for construction of additional building for expansion of school. So it is obvious that huge loan of Rs.5.40 crores contracted for expansion of school by way of raising construction of additional building. So it is not a case in which sanction of loan got by complainant for initial start of the school. Rather it is a case in which huge loan contracted for expanding the existing school business. As per case titled as Jagrut Nagrik and Anr. Vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 111(2015) CPJ 1 (NC)  if the truck chassis purchased  by complainant for expanding the existing business of transport, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer because said purchase was not exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. Same is the position in the case before us because earlier building of school was to be expanded by contracting loan in question. Even if the complainant society may be run on no profit no loss basis, but despite that the loan in question contracted for expanding the business and as such certainly ratio of above cited case is applicable to the facts of the present case. So complainant being not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, not competent to file this consumer complaint.

4.             In catena of other cases also, it has been held that when the services availed for commercial purposes, but without claiming the same to be availed for earning livelihood by way of self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer entitled to file the complaint under Consumer Protection Act.  If computer software is purchased by private company without pleading that same used by Managing Director for running business for self livelihood or self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per law laid down in case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd. I (2014) CPJ 332 (NC).  Likewise in case breach of buyer’s agreement qua purchase of commercial space takes place, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per case of Manu Talwar Vs. DPT Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 396 (NC). Similarly if a car exclusively purchased not for earning livelihood by way of self employment for the Director of the company, then in view of use of car for commercial purposes, complainant will not be a consumer as per case  titled as Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. Bombay House 2015 (IV) CLT 265 (NC).  In case a lift is installed for commercial purposes, then complaint before Consumer Forum is not maintainable as per case of  NIKITA Cares Vs. Surya Palace IV (2015) CPJ 405 (NC).  Ratio of all these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because it is no where pleaded by complainant that the loan availed by society for earning livelihood by way of self employment, despite the fact that the loan was contracted for commercial purposes, because of same sought for construction of additional building for expansion of school. As and when expansion of earlier established business sought, then certainly same is for earning profits or having greater turnover of income. Being so the person availing such services is not a consumer because element of profit in the shape of earning more is always involved in such a situation. As complainant is not consumer and as such this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, but complainant may avail remedy by approaching the appropriate Forum/Court.

4.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage with liberty to complainant to approach appropriate Forum/Court.

Announced

July 04, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member