MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

ORDER NO. 2  DT. 26.12.2013

The record is placed today for passing necessary orders on admission of the complaint case.

In course of hearing on the point of admission the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is a Government of India Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and provides financial assistance to the small scale industrial units.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has further submitted that the partners of M/s. Elegant Casting, a Partnership Firm, namely Mr. Raju Pathak and Mrs. Nisha Pathak, approached the complainant to grant credit facility to them.  Accordingly, the complainant arranged for two Bank Guarantees for the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- and Rs. 13,00,000/- respectively through the OP Bank, which were going to expire on 1.1.2013 and 7.1.2013 respectively.  However, the complainant, vide a letter dated 20.12.2012, requested the OP either to extend the validity period of both the Bank Guarantees for a further period of one year before the expiry date of those or to treat the said letter as demand on the part of the complainant.  However, the OP/Bank did not extend the Bank Guarantees at all and issued a letter dated 8.1.2013 to the complainant informing that the original Bank Guarantees were lying with the OP and from the record it was shown that the said Bank Guarantees had already been discharged and on enquiry the complainant found that the OP issued a fabricated letter to the complainant, which led the complainant to file a complaint against M/s. Elegant Casting and Mr. Raju Pathak and Mrs. Nisha Pathak before the Dasnagar Police Station bearing F.I.R. No. 21 of 2013 dated 18.1.2013.  The complainant alleges deficiency on the part of the OP in providing service to the complainant.  The complainant has submitted that the cause of action of the complaint case arose on 20.12.2012 being the date of execution of the Bank Guarantees, also on 26.12.2012 when the complainant came to know that the Bank illegally released the Bank Guarantees and again on 2.1.2013 when the complainant raised strong objection in the matter before the Bank and the cause of action is continuing till date.

It appears on the face of the record that the complainant is a limited company.  It is well settled that the limited company as well as the private limited company do not come under the purview of ‘Consumer’ as per the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

In view of that the instant petition of complaint is dismissed being not admitted.