We have heard Mr. R.N. Mishra, Director of the complainant-company on the question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Bank in relation to certain transactions and fixed deposit receipt.  The complainant has filed the present complaint claiming a total

-2-

compensation of Rs. 720  lakhs, besides Rs. 100 lakhs for financial loss etc., with interest. 

2.           We have carefully gone through the averments and allegations made in the complaint and the material placed on record in support of the said complaint.  Taking the same on its face value, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is misconceived before this Commission.   We say so because the deficiency, which the complainant has alleged on the part of the opposite party/Bank, is in relation to commercial transactions, which the complainant had with O.P./Bank in relation to his business.  The definition of ‘Consumer’ appearing in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection, 1986 has been amended by the Amending Act No. 62 of 2002 effective from 15.03. 2003 and any person who avails the services from a service provider for commercial purposes has been excluded from the purview of the said term.  The transactions referred in the complaint pertain to the year 2010-2011 i.e. subsequent to amendment and the complainant being a company engaged in the business of steel roller Mill and having obtained the services of the opposite party/Bank in connection with the business of the company, we are of the clear view that the complainant does not fall within the purview of Section 2 (1) (d) as it stands amended.  In this view, we are supported by decisions of the Hon’ble

-3-

 Supreme Court and this Commission as well in the Consumer Complaint No. 215 of 2011 titled as Adishwar Oils & Fats Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India.

3.      Going by the averments and allegations made in the said complaint and in particular that the complainant-company had alleged deficiency in service on the part of O.P./Bank in relation to certain business transactions, we hold that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora like the present Commission.  The facts and circumstances of the case are pari materia to the facts and circumstances of the above referred case.  We therefore, dismiss the present complaint as wholly misconceived before this Commission.  However, the complainant will be at liberty to work out his remedy before the appropriate Forum / Court in accordance with law.