Order-13.
Date-12/09/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainants’ case, in short, is that the complainants are the Directors of the company being named as Saha Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and they earn bread and butter from the said company and which is the only source of income. It is stated that the complainants are members of the same family and are running their business by taking loans from several financial institutions. The complainants for purchasing materials relating to business contacted with the Axis Bank at Barasat for availing a cash-credit loan to the tune of Rs.3 crores as the complainants and their company have the bank account lying with the local Barasat Branch at Axis Bank. The OP Bank asked the complainants to deposit an amount of Rs.2,52,810/- (including service tax) as processing fees to avail such amount of loan. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.2,52,810/-. The OP being satisfied about the capitals of the company sanctioned the said loan vide letter no.AXISB/KOL/SME/SEG/2014-15/179 dated 05-09-2014. The complainants completed all the documentations as per the sanctioned letter but surprisingly OP did not disburse the said loan amount. The complainants failed to get the opportunity to purchase the materials at low price as such. The complainants suffered huge loss. The complainants also sent a letter dated 16-11-2014 to OP4 ventilating his grievance and requested OP4 to refund the processing fees by cancelling the said letter. But OP did not respond to such letter. Subsequently, OP4 through e-mail informed the complainant that the application being rejected by the bank, the complainants are entitled to refund of the processing fees. It is alleged that the OPs have shown a gesture of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and the OPs are liable to refund the processing fees to the complainant with interest. Hence, this case.
OPs appeared in this case and filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. OPs, however, have not filed any written version.
In the given circumstances, we feel inclined to dispose the case on the basis of the materials available in the record.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainants?
- Whether the OPs have exhibited a demeanour of unfair trade practice?
- Whether the case is hit u/s.2(1)(d) of C.P. Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled through the petition of complaint and other materials on record. This case as we find has a chequered history. The case was earlier filed at D.C.D.R.F, North 24 Pgs. at Barasat and Ld. D.C.D.R.F., North 24 Pgs. was pleased to hold that the said Fora has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Eventually, this case is filed before this Forum.
We find that the OPs have challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of goods i.e. cash-credit loan stood to the tune of Rs.3 crores and as such, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try this case.
The point of controversy as we find before us is whether the OP Bank has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant or not? Whether the OP Bank deducted the processing fee to the tune of Rs.2,52,810/- rightfully as against the services rendered to the complainant or not?
The value of goods or services and compensation involved in this case as claimed does not exceeds Rs.20 lacs. Section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986 enunciates .subject to other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceeds Rupees Twenty Lakhs.. We put emphasis upon the word ‘claimed’. The Claim of the complainants does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Fora. We should not miss the tree in the wood. Moreover, the loan was not also disbursed to the complainants as we are given to understand by the parties. So, we do not find anything adverse with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this case.
The other question is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning as emphasized under the C.P. Act. We find that the complainants are all Directors of a company namely Saha Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. regd. under Companies Act, 1956. It is evident from the content of the complainant that the complainants are dealing with FMCG Products in a large scale business volume. Complainants approached the OPs for availing assistance by way of cash-credit and bank guarantee facility. So, it appears that the complainants request for loan in question is fully for commercial purpose. Although it is true that the complainant have not availed the loan ultimately, the service sought for to be availed was for commercial purpose. We think that the complainants do not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined u/s.2(1)(d), 21(b) of C.P. Act. Admittedly, all the four complainants are Directors of the Company M/s. Saha Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and they applied for loan to the OP for furtherance of business i.e. for commercial purpose for cash-credit facility. The complainants have not approached the OP Bank for loans in the individuals’ name. The Board Resolution also goes to show that the company had approached Axis Bank Ltd. for availing financial assistance by way cash-credit and bank guarantee facility and the copy of Board Resolution invariably indicates the loan as proposed was for commercial purpose. The business of the complainants at no stretch of imagination can be said to be for self-employment. We are afraid the complainants cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ where the services are availed for commercial purposes. We think that the present complaint is not at all a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Person availing services for commercial purpose cannot be considered as consumer under the C.P. Act. Services hired or availed for commercial purposes after amendment on 15-03-2003 does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. [IV (2014) CPJ 777 (NC) relied upon].
We accordingly hold that the case is not maintainable u/s.2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.
In result the case fails on the point of maintainability.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
We make no order as to cost.
