Maharashtra

StateCommission

CC/12/27

METALINOX INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

KAIKINI PHADKE & ASSOCIATES

18 Sep 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/27
 
1. METALINOX INDIA
THROUG MANOJ P CHANDAN PROPRIETOR 76, SOMAJI BUIDLING 433 PATTHE BAPURAO MARG NEAR ALANKANR CINEMA MUMBAI 400004
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC BANK LTD
CHOWPATTY BRANCH GRANT ROAD MUMBAI 400007
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Mr.Vivek V. Phadke, Advocate for the complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Mr.Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate for the opponent.
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER

Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member

          On behalf of Metal Inox India, Mr.Manoj P. Chandan, Proprietor has filed consumer complaint which is duly registered as Complaint No.27/2012 and the notice before admission is served to the opponent.  On 11/09/2012 opponent filed reply opposing admission of the complaint.

 

2.       We heard Mr.Vivek V. Phadke, Advocate for the complainant and Mr.Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate for the opponent. 

 

3.       Complainant is a company dealing with export-import business.  The complainant had filed a claim of `81,44,530/- against the opponent.  Learned Advocate for the opponent had opposed admission of the complaint on the ground that present complainant had availed services of the opponent for commercial purpose and hence, as per definition, he is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the services are hired for commercial purpose.  Learned Counsel for the complainant has tried to argue that he is a consumer.  However, no where in the complaint, he has stated that he is doing a business for earning his livelihood.  Learned Counsel for the opponent has relied on the decision of the National Commission in the case of Victory Electricals Ltd. V/s. IDBI Bank Ltd., I(2012) CPJ-55 (NC), wherein the National Commission has held that after going by nature of transaction between the parties, it is found that complainant had availed services of opponent for purely commercial purposes.  It cannot be said that services were availed by the complainant for ancillary purpose.  The complainant is not a consumer within meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission for redressal of its grievance and the present complaint is misconceived and rejected.  The facts and circumstances in the aforesaid ruling are relevant in our case.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Complaint stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

Pronounced

Dated 18th September 2012.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.