Quorum  : Sh. K.S. Mohi, President

                   Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member                            

                  Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                                                              ORDER                                       

Sh. K.S. Mohi, President

1.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 26-05-2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had a Home equity loan account bearing Loan Agreement No. XOHEDHE00001017509 with the OP. On 27.01.2015 the Complainants made  request to the OP for foreclosure of the said account and called upon it to furnish the outstanding dues payable by the complainants which was accepted vide request no.CR20150127671817 dated 27.01.2015.  It is further alleged by the complainant that OP issued a letter dated 25.02.2015 detailing the outstanding amount under different heads though the same were unexplained or accompanied by any statement of account. The said letter was not valid or legal and had various discrepancies for which the complainants issued legal notice dated 03.03.2015 enumerating the same to which the OP  had sent a misconceived reply dated 13.03.2015. In the notice dated 03.03.2015 the complainants inter alia questioned the authority of the OP to charge foreclosure charges @4% per month, which was proposed to be charged and payable to the OP by the complainant in letter dated 25.02.2015 which was mentioned as Rs.l4,96.002.44/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that  RBI  had issued guidelines that no foreclosure charges are to be levied/ claimed by the Banks/NBFC. The complainants further highlighted the illegal charges levied by the Respondent.  The Complainants approached OP’s office for foreclosure of the loan account with complete payment as demanded in the letter dated 25.02.2015 however under protest so as to avoid further financial loss, however to their utter surprise they were told that due to some technical glitch payment cannot be received. On the insistence of the complainant No.1 to receive the payment manually it was further conveyed by the officials of the OP they have no authority to manually receive the payment and foreclose the loan amount. Complainants alleged that the act of not receiving the payment was intentional as installment of the complainants became due on 5^th of every month and only to extort money the payment was not received. Complainants again approached OP’s office where they were handed over with a letter dated 05.03.2015 having a new increased outstanding amount.   Complainants  sent legal notice dated 21.04.2015 but to no effect. Hence complainants approached this forum  and prayed to direct OP to pay Rs. 15,32,169/- with accrued interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 05.03.2015, Rs 30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, pain and physical extortion etc and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. OP filed reply taking preliminary objections inter-alia  that  complainants are not consumers and are not covered the Consumer Protection Act  as the complainants had taken loan for business / commercial purpose and the claims of the complainants ought to be adjudicated by the Civil Courts only. OP prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainants  have filed his own affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Pandey Jr. Manager (legal),  has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of OP testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Complainants and OP have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by the parties and have also heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel  for the parties.
5. The main controversy in the present complaint is as to whether the complainants are entitled to the claim amount which has been levied by OP on account of foreclosure charges. Before deciding as to whether the complainants are entitled to the relief claimed it needs to be clarified that OP has taken specific ground in written statement that complainants are not  consumers and should have approached the Civil Court for relief. During the course of arguments counsel for OP vehemently suppressed that complainants had taken loan for business needs therefore it amounts to an commercial action is does not fall within the provision of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as under:

(d) “consumer” means any person who,—

1.  buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
2.   [hires or avails of] any services 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 services 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 services for any commercial purpose]

The bare look at the provisions stated above would explicitly demonstrate that any service availed for commercial purpose does not fall within the purview of definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986. The purpose of the loan as indicted in the loan application was commercial and the amount taken is  Rs 35 crores which obviously could be used for advance for business to the complainant. It is well settled law that money transaction for the purpose of commercial activity does not comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Even the current account being maintained by an individual is said to be a commercial activity. In case reported as M/s Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs State Bank of Patiala, decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 12.09.2014 in Consumer Case No.95/2006 by Justice V.K. Jain, it has been held that the question whether a company maintaining current account avails banking services for commercial purpose came up for consideration in case Subhash Moti Lal Shah Vs. Malegaon Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Revision Petition No.2571/12 decided on 12.02.2013.  In this case Hon’ble National Commission up held the decision of Hon’ble State Commission which held that operating current account connected and related to business transactions would fall within the category of hiring services for commercial purpose. 

6. Keeping in view of the discussion stated above, coupled with the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission,we are of the opinion that complainants are not consumers within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, being devoid of any merits.  No order as to cost. 
7. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.