Present complaint by four private limited companies has been filed against the opposite party bank claiming the following reliefs: “(i) direct the respondent to release all the security documents of the complainant withheld by it; (ii) direct the respondent to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainants regarding the said loan account; (iii) direct the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.16,06,382.66 paid in excess by the complainants to the respondent, towards full and final payment of the said loan account, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of payment, i.e. 13.4.2010 till the date of realization; (iv) strike down the claim of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 69,26,291.00 levied towards pre-payment charges plus service tax; (v) direct a further sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 as and by way of damages, for the material turmoil and agony and loss of business to the complainants; (vi) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” Complainants have taken loan of Rs.36,10,00,000/- against rent receivables from Rajouri Garden branch of the opposite party bank and that amount has been pre-paid. Complainant alleged that pre-payment charges and late payment penalty charges as realized by the opposite party bank are not payable by them. Since we have been of the prima facie opinion that the complainants are not consumers as the services availed of by them from the opposite party bank were for commercial purpose. We have heard Shri Vivek Kohli, Adv. on that point in the first instance. After the amendment by the Amending Act, 62 of 2002, the definition of ‘consumer’ as given in Section 2(1)(d) runs as under:- “(I )------------------------------------------------------------------------ (ii)[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]. [Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]” Hefty amount of Rs.16,50,00,000/- was obviously taken by the complainants which are not individuals for commercial activities and not for livelihood by means of self-employment within the meaning of the explanation attached to the said definition. Also considering the reliefs claimed, we are of the view that the complainants are not consumers and the present complaint is, therefore, not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed as such. Decision in F.A. No. 159 of 2004 – Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 03.12.2004 by this Commission whereof operation has been stayed by the Supreme Court in the appeal taken out by the Insurance Company, relied by Shri Kohli, Adv. is of no help to the complainant. | 
