In this appeal, PDC Marketing Ltd. has challenged the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No.CC/12/274. The State Commission has rejected the complaint filed by the appellant/PDC Marketing Limited, holding that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. In paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order the State Commission has noted that the Complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a multi-level marketing company operating from Nashik, marketing different types of goods through its Sales Commission Agents. In order to enable it to make payment of commission on sales to its agents, it had opened a bank account with OP/Axis Bank Ltd. The bank had issued ATM Cards in the name of the complainant company, which were distributed to the Sales Commission Agents. This arrangement enabled the SCAs to withdraw the amount of commission payable to them directly. The bank account and the ATM Cards stood in the name of the company. Under the arrangement, commission payment to the agents were towards commercial service rendered by them to the Complainant company. The State Commission, therefore observed that it is not a case of simple banking service but a camouflaged commercial activity was being carried out through this system in which 10060 ATM Cards had been activated by the bank.
3. While dismissing the complaint, the State Commissioner has held that:
“5. What we find that the total activity of the complainant-Company is a commercial activity and therefore, though it may be a service, but it is hired for commercial activity of the complainant. Therefore, complainant-Company may have a remedy against the opponent-Bank, but the complainant-Company is not a consumer within definition of Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consumer complaint is not a remedy for the complainant-Company.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant tried to rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Vimalchandra Grover V/s. Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2181. That is the case not involving a commercial transaction, but it was an individual account having overdraft facility and in that light banking is a service or not is considered by the Apex Court. There the complainant is a consumer and he was using the account for himself. In the present matter, such is not the position.”
4. Records submitted on behalf of the appellant/PDC Marketing Private Limited have been perused and Mr. D.A. Taur, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the appellant.
5. A copy of the Complaint filed before the State Commission is available on the records of the appeal. From a plain reading of the Complaint itself, the following facts emerge as part of the pleadings of the Complainant are significant and need a special mention.
a) In para 1, the complainant claims to be ‘a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956’.
b) As per para 3, it is a ‘multi-level marketing company operating from Nashik’.
c) Para 4 calls the account opened with the OP/Axis Bank a ‘current account in the name ‘PDC Marketing Private Ltd’. For operation of this account an agreement was executed between the two sides on 5.12.2008.
d) Paras 5 & 6, show that under the agreement of 5.12.2008, 23,200 corporate cards were issued exclusively to allow withdrawal of commission charges of the Complainant’s individual clients. For this total of Rs.4463573/- was paid by the Complainant Company to the OP/bank.
6. The above facts, as seen from the complaint petition itself, clearly show that it is a case of a bank account opened by a business company in furtherance of its commercial business. The operation of the bank account was to be in terms of the agreement of 5.12.2008 between the two parties.
7. Evidently, the cause of action in this case would arise only subsequent to 2008 when the amendment of the relevant provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had already come into effect on 15.3.2003. The amended Section 2(1) (d) (ii) defines the term ‘consumer’ in the context of hiring of the service (banking service in the present case) in the following terms:-
“(ii) [hires or avails of] any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purpose]”
8. The above provision, applied to the facts of this case, clearly shows that the Complainant cannot be treated as ‘consumer’ under the Act. The decision of the State Commission is therefore, clearly based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law.
9. The revision petition, while challenging the order of the State Commission, has sought to rely upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National Commission. However, no attempt is made to show how any of these decisions would be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also noticed that the following decisions clearly belong to the period prior to the amendment of 15.3.2003 to the relevant provision discussed above:-
“1) Vimal Chandra Grover Vs. Bank of India reported in (2000) 5 SCC 122.
2) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. N.K.Gupta, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243.
3. Amtrex Ambience Ltd. Vs. Alpha Radios and another, 1996, CPJ, 324 NC
4. Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. Vs. R.A.Aggarwal, in OP No.290 of 1997 (citation not given) ”
10. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel also could not throw any additional light on the matter. Therefore, no benefit can accrue to the case of the Complainant from these decisions. The revision is therefore held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. The order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No.CC/12/274 is confirmed. No orders as to costs. | 
