MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

No. 8/15.05.2014.

MA 44 of 2014

Today is fixed for order in relation to the Miscellaneous Application being No. M.A. 44/ 2014.

The instant M.A. is filed by the Opposite Party praying for dismissal of Complainant Petition with exemplary cost stating, inter alia, that the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint Case and prayed for directions upon the Opposite Party to make necessary correction and / or update the records of CIBIL and to remove the name of the Complainant from the classification of the assets as doubtful and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages. The Misc. Applicant has further stated that the complainant being the proprietor of a trading company having business of timber availed of credit facility of Rs. 80,00,000/- from Karur Vyasya Bank and also availed of factoring facility to the tune of Rs.10 million from the Opposite Party and also availed such type of financial assistance from other financial institutions and therefore, he can not be considered as a consumer since the financial assistance was availed for commercial purpose and as such the Petition of Complaint is not maintainable.

The Complainant has opposed the contention of the Misc. Application by filing affidavit in opposition stating, inter alia, that as the Complainant Company is a proprietorship concern represented by an individual, the Complainant is a consumer as per provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant has further stated that he hired service which was to be provided by the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party has been deficient in providing service since it enlisted the name of the Complainant in defaulter’s list and does not remove the same therefrom which hampers the earning of livelihood of the Complainant and as such the instant Complainant is very much maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.                   

In course of hearing of the maintainability petition Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant hired service from the O.P. Bank and thus he became a consumer under the O.P. Bank.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Bank has submitted that the instant case is not maintainable since the credit facility was availed for commercial purpose and the value of service exceeded the upper limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In support of his contention   Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Bank cited the decision reported in 2013 (2) CPR 1 (NC) in Subhas Motilal Shash (HUF) Dead through his LRs & Ors. wherein  the Hon’ble National Commission pleased to held that Business Bank Account does not come under purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Having heard both sides and on perusal of the record it appears that the Complainant, in paragraph No. 5 of his petition of complaint, has stated that he is an exporter and importer of timber and having been so approached other financial institutions for financial assistance for enhancing his working capital as the business of timber requires huge funds for import and export. It also appears that the Complainant, in paragraph No. 3 of his petition of complaint, has stated that in consideration of viability of the business of the complainant the Opposite Party, vide sanction letter dated 20.03.2008 sanctioned, in favour of the Complainant, factoring facility of Rs. 10 Million and charged Rs. 2,75,000/- towards processing fee.

The Complainant is aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the CIBIL list as a defaulter. In para 19 of the Complaint Petition it has been averred that the complainant is a businessman without financial assistance he can not run his business. Evidently, therefore, the Complainant is engaged in commercial activity.

In view of that, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant is not a consumer as per the provision contemplated under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection act,1986 and the instant Petition of Complaint is not maintainable under the said Act.

In the result, the Misc. Application being No. 44 of 2014 is allowed on contest without cost. Consequently, the Petition of Complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.