05/06/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT        

           This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 273 of 2011 dismissing the complaint.

          The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short, is that the Complainants are the Directors of a Company, namely, M/s Think Tank Consultants (P) Ltd. which is running by them for the purpose of livelihood only.  The Company does not have any Director other than the Complainants.  In December 2006 the Company required its Director, that is, the Complainants to provide collateral security by way of deposit of their NSCs to the Company’s banker being the Central Bank of India, Ballygunge Branch for availing demand loan facilities for meeting urgent needs.  The Complainants agreed to provide their two sets of NSCs to the Bank on conditions that the Company will provide loan timely and on a regular basis.  On 15/12/06 the Company collected the NSC certificates from the Complainants and deposited the same with the Bank on the same day which was again acknowledged by the Bank.  In the 1^st week of October 2009 the OPs were found not to be in a position to return the NSCs of the Complainants against the Company’s and/or of the Complainants’ proposal to settle the loan.  The Complainants requested the Company vide letter dated 02/11/09 for returning the NSCs after getting them released from the Bank.  The Bank was not in a position to return the NSCs in original to the Complainants.  Under such circumstances, the complaint was filed. 

          It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the certificates were lost from the custody of the Bank, but the Bank did not lodge FIR.  It is contended that the loan was liquidated. 

          The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Bank and the Complainants.  It is submitted that the contract was made with M/s Think Tank Consultants (P) Ltd. and the loan was sanctioned in the name of the Company.  It is submitted that the Learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. 

          We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  From the papers on record it appears that the loan was sanctioned in the name of the Company, namely, M/s Think Tank Consultants (P) Ltd.  Evidently, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the Complainants and the Bank.  Moreover, it is the settled law that the private limited company cannot maintain a consumer complaint.  The Learned District Forum, therefore, was justified in dismissing the complaint. 

          The Appeal is dismissed.