Shri. Avinash V. Prabhune, Member –
1. Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainant on dtd 16th Feb 2023. The matter was adjourned on subsequent dates due to the requests of counsel for making additional submissions on the issue of eligibility of Complainant as ‘Consumer’ within meaning of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. In the present complaint, the Complainant is the private limited company involved in manufacture of printed plastic rolls & having business at Mouja Asoli, Tah Kamptee, Dist Nagpur. Complainant has Cash Credit Account No 50250507023 with Opposite Party bank at Nagpur. Complainant is aggrieved due to non refund of Rs 3,86,987/- collected as processing fee by Bank (Opposite Party). Complainant filed present complaint by alleging deficiency in services of the OP. Complainant prayed for issuing directions to OP for refunding Rs 3,86,987/- alongwith interest at the rate of !8% p.a.& claimed compensations & costs for the suffering.
3. It can be seen from the averments in the Complaint & documents enclosed with compliant that Complainant is involved in manufacture of printed plastic rolls & carrying out business at Nagpur as private limited company. Moreover, Complainant has Cash Credit Account No 50250507023 with Opposite Party bank at Nagpur.
a) It is clear that Complainant is operating Cash Credit Account No 50250507023 with OP for its business activities for commercial purpose. It can be seen from document No 3 that OP had sanctioned Cash credit limit of Rs 200/- lacs on 05.11.2014 & Rs 400/- Lacs on 31.03.2017. In the matter of Shushma Goel Vs Punjab National Bank, 2011 CPJ 270(NC), the complaint was related to the operation of bank account, maintained by a commercial entity, for commercial purpose. Hon’ble NCDRC, had held that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer’ as per The Consumer Protection Act 1986..
b) It can be seen that the complainant had not given any averments in the Complaint regarding running his commercial business for earning his livelihood. Hon Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,” had given examples about commercial activities involved in purchasing auto rickshaw, truck, lathe machine by an individual. It can be seen that complainant is earning profits by undertaking its business activities; therefore, it is crystal clear that Cash credit limit was obtained by Complainant from OP for a commercial purpose for fulfilling his business needs.. To understand the issue more elaborately, it is necessary to refer Section 2(7)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019, which reads as under :
Section 2 (7) (ii) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) ...................................; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
In view of the above discussions, Commission is of the firm opinion that present Complainant is not entitled to be considered as ‘Consumer’ within definition of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
4. Commission would like to refer observations of the Apex Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,” wherein, It was categorically observed by the Apex Court that the entire Consumer protection act revolves around the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The act provides for “business to consumer” disputes and not for “business to business” disputes. It was specifically mentioned that the Act provides not for “business to business” disputes. It means it is not expected under the provisions of the Act that both parties are running a business. If that is so then dispute between “business to business” is not expected to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Hon Supreme court judgment in the “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583” & subsequent amendment in the Consumer Protection Act of 62 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 15.3.03. Similar provisions were made applicable even under Section 2(7)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In view the facts, the complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ within the definition of 'Consumer' given in Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
6. Before parting with case, it is matter of records that Complaint was filed on 09.02.2023 before Commission. It was listed for admission hearing on 16.02.2022 but adjourned to 28.02.2023 & 06.03.2023 as per request of Counsel for Complainant in order to satisfy eligibility of Complainant as ‘Consumer’. It can be seen that the delay in deciding admissibility of the complaint was solely due to the request of the Complainant; therefore, time sought by Complainant through adjournments has to be deducted for computing the period of 21 days provided for admission of Complaint as per Section 35(2) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint cannot be deemed to be admitted.
7. In view of the above facts/circumstances & discussions, present Complaint cannot be entertained, therefore, deserves to be dismissed at admission stage, hence dismissed..
ORDER
1) Complaint is dismissed at admission stage.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Certified copy of this order be supplied to Complainant free of cost.
