BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 27/08/2014
Date of Order : 30/08/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member. .
C.C. No. 639/2014
Between
Krishnamani. P.K., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. P.T. Peethambaran, Kerala index, C/o. Sooryog Foundation, Perandoor Road, Kaloor, Cochin – 682 017. | | (By Adv. Liza Meghan Cyriac, Ernakulam.) |
And
1. Axis Bank Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
Corporate Office, Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025. 2. Axis Bank Ltd., Pallavaram, Pammal Branch, Chennai – 600 043, Tamil Nadu. 3. Axis Bank Ltd., having its branch office at 36/2693-F, Shanma Towers, Kaloor Kathrikadavu Road, South Kaloor, Ernakulam – 682 017. | | (Notice not sent) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. This complaint has been preferred by the complainant purportedly a current account holder of the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents on record.
3. Evidently, the complainant is not maintaining any current account with the opposite parties in his personal capacity, on the contrary, M/s. M2M Global Enterprises a sole proprietorship concern maintains the current account with the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, there is neither privity of contract nor consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant did not have any locus-standi to file the complaint as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. It was so held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Himkasth Sales Depot, Nurpur, through its Divisional manager & Another Vs Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Nurpur & another 2012 (4) (CPR 477 (NC).
4. Admittedly, the transaction of the proprietorship concern is with the 2nd opposite party who is conducting business in Chennai. Though the complainant stated that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010 (1) SCC 135) held that “If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that if a cause of action in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamilnadu or Guwahati or any where in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with the contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to 'bench hunting'. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act would mean the branch office, where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is some times necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. (Vide GP Sing's principles of statutory interpretation, Ninth Edition 2004 Para 79)”.
5. The averments in the complaint go to show that the complainant has availed the service of the 3rd opposite party for commercial purpose. As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, if a 'person' avails of any service for any commercial purpose, it is not included in the definition of 'consumer' unless such service was availed by him was exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In the instant case, there is no mention anywhere in the complaint that the transaction was done for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, the complainant did not fall under the purview of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Our view is supported by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Economic Transport Organisation Vs. Cheran Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2010 CPR (SC) (CP) P 379.
b. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
6. In view of the above the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum for the following reasons :
a. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint.
c. The complainant is not a 'consumer' within the purview of the
Consumer Protection Act.
7. If at all the complainant is aggrieved his remedy lies elsewhere, not in this Forum. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to receive back the complaint and related documents to submit before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of August 2014.
Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
