(Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

(1)               Heard.  The original complaint filed by Mr.Jayantilal Gangar, who described himself as a director of Gangar Opticians Pvt. Ltd.   It is consumer complaint filed by Mr.Jayantilal Gangar in his personal capacity and it is not a complaint by the company ‘Gangar Opticians Pvt.Ltd.’, which is a separate and distinct juristic person as per provisions of Sec. 2 (1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This appeal is preferred by the company and not by the original complainant.  Therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable.

(2)               For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that the appeal is maintainable, it could be seen that the appeal is directed against the order dated 25/05/2010 passed by Central Mumbai Consumer District Redressal Forum (The forum in short) in Consumer Complaint No.101/2009 – Mr.Jayantilal Gangar Vs. H.D.F.C.Bank Ltd. & ors.

(3)               Appellant company has availed overdraft facility for its business and deficiency is alleged in respect of said overdraft facility for levying certain charges amounting to `28,652/-.  The overdraft facility is availed admittedly to make available running capital for the business and availing such overdraft facility is a part of the business.  Therefore, since the services of the Bank were availed for commercial purpose, the appellant cannot be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  A useful reference on the point can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of - Economic Transport Organization Vs. Chavan Spinning Mills – 2010 CTJ 361 (S.C.)(CP).  It is tried to be argued that the capital flow which is made available through such overdraft facility is a simple facility having nothing to do with the profit & loss of the company.  We are unable to agree with it.  Money flow for running capital, supra, has direct nexus with the profit and loss of the company.  Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view than the forum.  Thus, the appeal is devoid in substance.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

(1)     The appeal is not admitted, and stands disposed off accordingly.

(2)     No order as to costs.     

Pronounced on 27^th June, 2011.