RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 4 OF 2018
Shree Shakti Foams
71-B, Cooperative Bank Compound
Near Subhash Park
M. G. Road, Agra.
Through Smt. Manju Raj
W/o Dharmendra Raj Shivhare
...Complainant
Vs.
Canara Bank
Jaipur House, Agra.
Through Manager
...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Sri Naveen Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 12-03-2018
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission by complainant Shree Shakti Foams against Canara Bank, Jaipur House, Agra with following prayers:-
परिवादिनी निम्नलिखित अनुतोष विपक्षी से दिलाये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना करत है:-
- यह कि स्टाक समरी के अनुसार 1 अप्रैल 2017 से 20 अक्टूबर 2017 तक परिवादिनी के गोडाऊन में रू. 39,19,527.52 का स्टॉक था, अत: विपक्षी बैंक से परिवादिनी को मु0 रू. 39,19,527.52 दिलाया जाय।
- विपक्षी की घोर लापरवाही, असावधानी एवं दोषपूर्ण सेवाओं की वजह से परिवादिनी को हुए मानसिक व शारीरिक कष्ट तथा आर्थिक क्षति के लिये बतौर अनुतोष कम से कम
:2:
रू. 5,00,000/- परिवादिनी को विपक्षी से दिलाया जाये।
- यह कि वाद व्यय एवं अधिवक्ता फीस के रू. 3,00,000/- परिवादिनी को विपक्षी से दिलाया जाये।
- यह कि परिवादिनी का हुए नुकसान रू. 39,19,527.52 पर ब्याज घटना होने की तिथि से जो भी उचित ब्याज माननीय आयोग समझे उसे भी विपक्षी से परिवादिनी को दिलाया जाय।
- अन्य कोई आदेश जो मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों के आधार पर माननीय राज्य आयोग की राय में न्यायोचित हो, पारित करने की कृपा की जाये।
In complaint it has been contended that Smt. Manju Raj is proprietor of complainant Shree Shakti Foams and doing business of mattress and foams for earning her livelihood.
In complaint it has been further contended that for running above business the complainant has taken financial assistance from opposite party Canara Bank.
In complaint it has been contended that the bank was getting insurance policy in the name of complainant for security of stock with premium debited from the account of complainant. In the meantime on 20-10-2017 at about 8.00 p.m. the godown of complainant was gutted in fire. The complainant approached opposite party Canara Bank to know about Insurance Company but the opposite party neither disclosed name of Insurance Company; nor furnished copy of insurance policy to complainant. Consequently the complainant could not lodge her claim before Insurance Company. Subsequently complainant came to know that the insurance policy of complainant obtained by opposite party expired on 11-07-2017 but opposite party did not get it renewed. As such the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.
The averment made in complaint shows that complainant Shree Shakti Foams is a proprietor firm and is doing business of mattress and
:3:
foams. It has taken financial assistance from opposite party Canara Bank for its business which is commercial purpose. There is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the complainant has started business of firm after taking financial assistance from opposite party for the purpose of self employment and earning livelihood for her family. In view of facts mentioned above it is clear that complainant is a business concern and has taken loan from opposite party for business purpose. As such the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The view expressed above finds support from the following judgments of Hon’ble National Commission.
- Sathya Sai Agencies V/s Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2016(1) CPR 612(NC).
- Consumer Case No. 1047 of 2016 Sidhmukh Flexible Packaging Pvt. Ltd. V/s State Bank of India and 2 others.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of Indian Overseas Bank V/s MS. Sheba and another reported in I(2014) CPJ 262 (NC) as well as judgment of this State Commission rendered in Complaint No. 49/2013 New Tyre Centre V/s Bank of India, Sultanpur Branch.
In view of above recent judgments of Hon’ble National Commission the complainant cannot get benefit of these two judgments.
In view of discussion made above complaint is dismissed with liberty to complainant to avail other legal remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievance.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
pnt
