DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/165/2018

No. DF/ Central/

Shri Riazuddin,

S/o Shri Nasiruddin,

Prop. M/s Rico International,

At 2069, Gali Quasim Jan,

Balli Maran, Delhi-110006                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                  …..COMPLAINANT  

VERSUS

The Chief Manager,

Bank of India,

Humdard Dawakhana Branch,

1545, Gali Quasim Jan,

Bazar Lal Kuna,

Balli Maran, Delhi-110006

                                                                                           …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

ORDER

Rekha Rani, President

       Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended alleging therein that complainant opened a current account in the name of his concern namely M/s Rico International with Bank of India, Humdard Dawakhana Branch, 1545, Gali Quasim Jan, Bazar Lal Kuna, Balli Maran, Delhi-110006 (bearing number 601220100048109).  The said account was in operation from 1990 to 2005.  The complainant suffered business loss in the year 2003.  In November 2016, on demonetization of old Indian currency, complainant went to the OP to deposit old currency notes.  OP informed the complainant, that balance in his account was Rs. 0.00 (Rupees Zero) which is wrong.  Complainant deposited various amounts in cash as well as cheque from time to time with effect from 15.09.1993 to 27.11.1995 details whereof are given in Para 8.  OP has not provided any statement of account to the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2017 to the OP and also filed a criminal complaint with S.H.O, Police Station Hauz Quazi, Delhi against the OP.  The present complaint is filed with a prayer for direction to the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards damages, Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation for mental harassment, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

         Admittedly we have heard Sh. M.C. Jain learned counsel for complainant.

       Complainant in the title of the complaint has shown himself as proprietor of M/s Rico International.  However, in Para 1 he says that M/s Rico International is his firm.  It is further pleaded that in the name of his firm, he opened a current account bearing number 601220100048109 in 1990 with OP.  He has given certain details of deposits made in cash as well as cheque with effect from 1993 to 1995 and it is stated that OP is not maintaining correct statement of account/balance in his current account.

       In Subhash Motilal Shah (Huf) & Ors vs Malegaon Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd., a consumer complaint no. 87/2008 was complained before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik related to alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP bank (herein after referred as bank) for honouring various cheques, which according to complainant were the cheques not issued by the account holder and signature of the operating person were forged. Forum dismissed the consumer complaint on two counts, on the count of limitation and that the complainants were not consumers since it related to commercial transaction vis-a-vis services were hired for commercial purpose.

            In appeal, State Commission vide its order dated 27.02.2012 dismissed the appleal while observing

 “Admittedly, since Rainbow Corporation is a firm of Ajay Subhash Shah (HUF), i.e.jurisdic person there arise no question of self employment so as to cover the case under explanation to section 2(1)(d)(ii)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for brevity). It is a case relating to an action related with services given while operating the Current Account of Appellant Rainbow Corporation which was admittedly opened and used for business purpose, of the business of commission agent and business of yarn sale. Therefore, since the account itself is connected and related to the business transactions and such banking activity is required for the functioning of a given business enterprise of the appellant/complainant, services hired for that purpose would fall within the category of hiring services for commercial purpose. A useful reference can be made to free dictionary by FARLEX (on Internet) which defines the Business Activity as the activity undertaken as a part of commercial enterprise. Further, reference can be made to an article available on the internet Website Wise Geek (copy right protected 2003-12 by Conjecture Corporation) and which is written by Alexis.W, edited by Heater Bailey.

Under the circumstances, prima facie appellant/complainant Rainbow Corporation cannot be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant referred to decision of the National Commission in the matter of Harsolia Motors v/s.

National Insurance Co.Ltd. I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC). However, said decision which relates to services offered by the Insurance Company and is distinguishable in the background of facts of the present case.

Apex Court decision in the matter of Economic Transport Organization V/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Another, 2010 CTJ 361 (SC) (CP), could be referred with advantage.”

       In view of the aforesaid, present complaint is dismissed.  Complainant not found to be a consumer.