Delhi

StateCommission

A/801/2014

VARDHMAN PRECISION PROFILES & TUBES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 22.03.2018

 

First Appeal- 801/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 399/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

 

Vardhman Precision Profiles &

Tubes Pvt. Ltd.,

D-II/208, Savitri Nagar,

New Delhi-110 017.

Through its Managing Director

Shri Nirdosh Jain

…..Appellant

 

Versus

Canara Bank,

Ansal Tower,

Nehru Place,

New Delhi.

 

.….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

 1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.                Aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.399/2013, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

2.                Briefly the facts are that the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act stating therein that he had opened a current account having fund and non-fund based limit with respondent/OP in the year 1994.  The current account was regularly updated and renewed from year to year.  On 30.11.10, the appellant/complainant was granted credit facilities from 29.10.10 to 29.10.11.  The appellant/complainant was not satisfied with the services of respondent/OP and as such was trying to shift his account to another bank i.e. State Bank of India.  On enquiries made from respondent/OP, the   appellant/complainant learnt that a penalty of Rs.13,84,679/- was imposed upon appellant/complainant on the pretext of non-submission of QOS on the date of closure of account i.e. 28.8.11.  The appellant/complainant had alleged that QOS was never asked from it.  It was alleged that respondent/OP had no right to impose and deduct QOS.  It was alleged that respondent/OP had wrongly imposed QOS of Rs.13,84,679/- as such prayer was made for waiving of the same and for grant of compensation of Rs.5 lacs. 

3.                The complaint was opposed by respondent/OP by filing written statement wherein objection was taken that the appellant/complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.  It was also alleged that the appellant/complainant had an account with respondent/OP at Rani Bagh Branch, Delhi and the complaint was filed against respondent/OP at Ansal Tower, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi.  It was also alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the appellant/complainant had no case.

4.                 Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.

5.                After hearing both the parties, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that the appellant/complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.  There was no cause of action available to appellant/complainant against respondent/OP at Ansal Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi as the appellant/complainant was having account with respondent/OP at Rani Bagh Branch, Delhi.  On the basis of documents placed on record by the respondent/OP, Ld. District Forum held that the appellant/complainant was made aware about requirement of submission of statement of QOS as such there was no negligence and complaint was dismissed.  

6.                Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

7.                Counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that the banking services were not availed for commercial purpose as such the District Forum has wrongly held that appellant/complainant was not a consumer.  It is stated that even the District Forum has also wrongly held that the Consumer Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present case.  It is contended that even findings on merits are wrong.

8.                On the other hand, Counsel for respondent/OP argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

9.                We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 

10.              It is own case of the appellant/complainant that a current account having fund and non-fund based limit was opened with respondent/OP at Rani Bagh, New Delhi in the year 1994.  It is also its case that the credit facility from the respondent/OP was also taken.  It is further case of appellant/complainant that the credit limit for the current account was regularly sanctioned and renewed every year by respondent/OP.  Perusal of material on record shows that credit facility of Rs. 400 lacs to 600 lacs had been sanctioned to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant is a private limited company and as per document on record, its line of business is manufacturing of pre engineered Pre Fabricated building system and Allied Products.  The credit facility is taken for business purpose.  Material on record shows that the credit facility has been taken by the appellant/complainant for commercial purpose.  The appellant/complainant is a not a ‘consumer’.  Further the appellant/complainant is a limited company and not an individual.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the services of respondent/OP were availed for earning livelihood by means of self employment as has been alleged.  The reliance is placed on the judgement of National Commission in M/s. Sam Fine O Chem Limited, Formerly known as M/s. Sam Fine Chem Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory vs Union Bank of India thorugh its Branch Deputy General Manager, II (2013) CPJ 490 (NC).  In these circumstances, appellant/complainant is not a ‘consumer’ ad defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  Further the grievance of the complainant that QOS has been charged by respondent/OP arbitrarily due to shifting of account by appellant/complainant is also considered.  Respondent/OP has placed on record the documents on the basis of which credit facility was sanctioned in favour of appellant/complainant.  As per material on record, QOS has been debited as per sanctioned terms and conditions of credit facility.  There are various letters on record filed by respondent/OP which are sent to appellant/complainant for submitting quarterly returns.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said that QOS was never asked from appellant/complainant as is alleged. 

11.              We have also gone through the finding of Ld. District Forum on the point of territorial jurisdiction.  We find no reason to disagree with the same also.

 

12.              In view of above discussion, no illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.

13.              The appeal stands dismissed.

14.              A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. Record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.      

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member