This Original Complaint, by a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has been filed against the Indian Overseas Bank and its functionaries, inter alia, praying for a direction to them to pay an amount of ₹26,97,00,000/- as compensation along with interest                                @ 24% p.a., for the alleged deficiency in service on their part in not granting to them the relief, extended to the Poultry Industry, in terms of the Circular, stated to have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 19.02.2008.  By the said Circular, addressed to all Scheduled Commercial Banks, guidelines for relief measures by Banks to Poultry Industry (2008) had been communicated.

               In short, the grievance of the Complainant, as can be culled out from the brief and crisp averments in the Complaint, is that due to inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties impleaded in the Complaint, in not extending the benefit of the Scheme, as stipulated in the afore-said Circular, the Company had suffered substantial losses on account

-3-

of their Unit being declared as an NPA and initiation of proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and ultimately, sale of its assets.

               Having heard learned Counsel for the Complainant for some time on the question of Admission of the Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), we are of the opinion that the Complaint is not maintainable under the Act.  It is evident from the facts pleaded in the Complaint that the Complainant had availed of a term loan facility to the tune of ₹2,70,00,000/-, for the purpose of running a Poultry Farm as a Large Scale Commercial venture and hence, by no stretch of imagination, the said activity could be said to be, exclusively for the purpose of earning “Company’s” livelihood by means of self-employment, falling within the ambit of Explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.  Hence, in our view, the Complainant is not a “Consumer”, within the meaning of the said Section.  Additionally, having been declared as an NPA Unit and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act having been initiated long time back, in our view, it is too late in the day for this Commission to examine at this stage the question as to whether or not, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on the afore-stated ground.

-4-

               We are, therefore, of the opinion that the instant Complaint under the Act is misconceived and cannot be admitted.  Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed in llimine.