Shri. Avinash V. Prabhune, Member –
Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainant on dtd 04th Feb 2022. The matter was adjourned on subsequent dates due to the requests of counsel for making additional submissions with documents on the issue of admission of complaint. Perused the Complaint with all documents.
1. In the present complaint, the Complainant is the private limited company having business at Nagpur. Complainant has Current account No 8660550047 with Opposite Party bank at Nagpur. Complainant had carried out IMPS transaction for transferring Rs 2,00,000/- from its current account to Nimbarte Hospital, Lakhni, Dist Bhandara. The said transaction was successful but the amount was not transferred to the beneficiary account. Complainant filed present complaint by alleging deficiency in services of the OP. Complainant prayed for issuing directions to OP for refunding Rs 2,00,000/- & claimed compensations & costs for the suffering.
2. It can be seen from the averment in Para No 1 of complaint that that Complainant is carrying out its business at Nagpur. Moreover, Complainant has Current account No 8660550047 with Opposite Party bank at Nagpur.
a) It is clear that Complainant is operating Current account with OP for its business activities for commercial purpose. In “Shushma Goel Vs Punjab National Bank, 2011 CPJ 270(NC)” , the complaint related to the operation of bank account, maintained by a commercial entity, for commercial purpose. Hon’ble NCDRC held that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer.
b) It can be seen that the complainant had not given any averments in the Complaint regarding running his commercial business for earning his livelihood; on the contrary, Complainant remained suspiciously about the activities of the Company. Hon Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,” judgment about purchasing auto rickshaw, truck, lathe machine by an individual & using same for earning livelihood by way of self employment. It can be seen that complainant is earning profits by undertaking its business activities; therefore, it is crystal clear that services of the OP were hired or availed by the complainant for a commercial purpose. To understand the issue more elaborately, it is necessary to refer Section 2(7)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019, which reads as under :
Section 2 (7) (ii) "consumer" means any person who
(i) or
(ii) hires or avails of any service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose.
In view of the above discussions, Commission is of the firm opinion that present Complainant is not entitled to be considered as ‘Consumer’ within definition of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
3. Commission would like to refer observations of the Apex Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,” wherein, It was categorically observed by the Apex Court that the entire Consumer protection act revolves around the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The act provides for “business to consumer” disputes and not for “business to business” disputes. It was specifically mentioned that the act provides not for “business to business” disputes. It means it is not expected under the provisions of the act that both parties are running a business. If that is so then dispute between “business to business” is not expected to be covered under the Act.
4. Complainant had filed complaint through its authorized signatory, Shri Subhash Ilme, but no document is filed on records to establish his authorization & relationship with company., on the contrary, all documents (Doc No 5,6,7) filed with complaint clearly indicates that entire correspondence was executed only by Shri Lokesh Ilme & not by Sh Subhash Ilme. The relationship & locus of Sh Lokesh Ilme in the present matter is not specified anywhere in the complaint. Moreover, for claiming territorial jurisdiction of this Additional commission, authorized signatory, claimed to be the resident of Umrer but no document is filed on records to establish the same. In view of the fact that both parties are situated at Nagpur, Commission is of the firm opinion that present Complainant is outside territorial jurisdiction of this Additional commission in the absence of proper documents to that effect.
5. Hon Supreme court judgment in the “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583” & subsequent amendment in the Consumer Protection Act of 62 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 15.3.03. Similar provisions were made applicable even under Section 2(7)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In view the facts, the complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ within the definition of 'Consumer' given in Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
6. Before parting with case, it is matter of records that Complaint was filed on 28.01.2022 before Commission. It was listed for admission hearing on 04.02.2022 but adjourned to 17.02.2022 & 03.03.2022 as per the request of Counsel for complainant.. It can be seen that the delay in deciding admissibility of the complaint was solely due to the requests of the Complainant; therefore, time sought by Complainant through adjournments has to be deducted for computing the period of 21 days provided for admission of Complaint as per Section 35(2) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint cannot be deemed to be admitted.
7. In view of the above facts/circumstances & discussions, present Complaint cannot be entertained as this commission lacks jurisdiction, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, hence dismissed..
ORDER
1) Complaint is dismissed at admission stage.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Certified copy of this order be supplied to Complainant free of cost.
