This appeal is directed against the order no. 3 dated 1/11/2018 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in reference to CC No. 104/S/2018. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the appellant/complainant M/S RK paper House and its partners lodged a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum to the effect that the said partnership Farm had an account with UBI, Mahabirstan Branch, Siliguri with facilities of Cash Credit limit of rupees 1.75 l crore.

Subsequently, the said account was transferred to the ICICI Bank, Siliguri Branch with the same quantum of cash credit facilities by which the complainant/appellant Farm would get the benefit of free cash pick up facilities which would have no hidden charges and that shifting of the said account from UBI to ICICI bank was completed on 6/6/2013.

Subsequently, it was brought into the notice of the appellant Farm that  ICICI bank started to take cash  pick up charges and deducted different fake charges from the said account which was tried to stop by the complainant Farm by making several correspondence and while the deduction of such charges was continuing in spite of repeated protests of the complainant/appellant farm, the instant consumer complaint was registered against the ICICI bank and its Branch Manager, Director Manager, Directors, Business Relation Manager etc. The consumer compliant was registered and it was placed before the Ld. Forum for its admission and during the course of admission hearing. Ld. Forum has observed that the complaint No. 1 is a partnership farm and its partners were not the consumers as per definition of section 2 (1)(d) of CP act, 1986 and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum also hits over the quantum of amount of cash credit facilities to the tune of rupees 1.75 crore and for the reason, the ld. Forum did not accept the consumer case and rejected its admission. Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and acted with serious irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by law and the finding of ld. Forum was erroneous, defective and liable to be set aside. The appeal was admitted on its own merit by this Commission and notice was served upon the respondents who have contested the appeal through the Ld. Advocate appointed by the respondent banks. The appeal was heard in presence of both sides.

Decision with reasons

During the course of argument and hearing the appeal on merit, Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that though the appellants are the partners of a Farm styled as M/S RK paper House. The business of the Farm relates to a business of purchase and selling goods and in that score cash credit facilities was obtained from the UBI, Mahabirstan Brach and the said account was subsequently transferred to ICICI bank who has started to deduct illegal cash pickup charges and including some fake charges and total amount of deduction was rupees 10,83,705 and the complainant/appellant has prayed before the Ld. Forum to return of the said deducted money along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum and the total claim amount was confined to less than rupees 20,00,000 though the cash credit facility was provided to the complainant/appellant, covered up to rupees 1.75 crores. To fix up the pecuniary jurisdiction of this case, the claim amount should be computed and not the amount of cash credit facilities as because the subject matter of the case relates to illegal deduction of cash pickup charges and fake charges from the account to the tune of rupees 10,83,705.

It is further contended on the part of the appellant side that Ld. Forum has misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case as because the complainant are the partners and the said Farm should run this business for the self-employment of their livelihood and the business of the Farm should not be confined to only on commercial activities. The Opposite party/respondents has strongly opposed the submission of the appellants and according to the case of the respondents, the activities of the appellant Farm are totally commercial activities and there is no whispering in the pleading of the complainant/appellant that the complainant/appellants are running the said business only for self-employment for the livelihood.

It is further argued on the part of the ld. Advocate of the respondent that a partnership Farm should not come within the purview of definition “consumer” as enunciated in the Section 2(a)(d) of consumer protection Act, 1986.

The another argument on the part of the respondents that the cash credit facilities was provided to the appellant Farm up to rupees 1.75 crore and due to that reason the ld. Forum has rightly observed that the quantum of cash credit facilities exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum and for that reason, the consumer complainant was dismissed.

After hearing Ld. Advocate of both sides and after perusing statutory provisions, the commission find that the consumer means any person or any persons who buys any goods for a consideration or hires or avails any service for a consideration shall come within the purview of consumer under the provision of CP Act, 1986 but such buying of goods and hiring of service should not be for any commercial purpose. But the concept of commercial purpose shall not include purchase or sale such goods or hiring services by a person for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Here in this case, the compliant/appellant in their consumer complainant did not mention that the activities of the Farm relates to commercial activities and it is also a fact that in that consumer complainant  it is also not been mentioned that the activities confined to the Farm purely the activities of self-employment of for livelihood of the partners. It is also settled principle of law that whether the purpose for which a person has brought goods, is a commercial purpose or not is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. Ld. forum in that preliminary stage of the case has held the appellant Farm is a partnership Farm and the complainants as partners of this farm are not the consumers.

It is also settled Principle of law that mere dismissal of consumer complaint on its admission stage dose not preclude a bona fide consumer to reagitate again for the same relief with a fresh Consumer Complainant with same cause of action.

Here the appellant/complainant claim themselves as consumers and they earn their livelihood from the self-employment of doing an activities of selling and purchasing goods in the name of the Farm and they have come before the Forum for the grievances due to cash pickup  charges and fake charges was deducted from their cash credit account by the bank and they have sought some reliefs before the Ld. Forum and they should have given an opportunity to adduce sufficient evidences in support  of their case during the course of hearing  and for that reason Ld. Forum without dismissing the consumer complaint on admission stage, ought to have given an opportunity to invite the opposite parties to contest the instant consumer complaint on its own merit. The pecuniary jurisdiction as Ld. Forum considered that it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. forum as the subject matter relates to rupees 1.75 crore. But the actual position is that some fake charges, and cash pick up charges was deducted from the account of the appellant amounting to Rs. 10,83,705 and total claim amount does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of Ld. Forum and for that reason, the decision of the Ld. Forum regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction is also not correct one.

However, for the ends of justice, this Commission, thinks it fit without dismissing the consumer complaint, the complainant/appellants should be given an opportunity to amend their consumer complaint and the consumer complaint should be adjudicated within the provision of law after giving opportunity of being heard to both parties of this case in order to prevail the doctrine of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeal, succeeds.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order no. 3 dated 1/11/2018 of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in CC no. 104/5/2018 is hereby set aside. The same consumer complaint by virtue of the order of this Commission is hereby admitted on its own merit.

The appellant/complainant are hereby given liberty to amend their consumer complaint in accordance with the provisions of consumer protection act, 1986 and amended copy of consumer complaint be placed before the Ld. Forum within one month and the copy of the same be supplied to the opposite Parties and the respondents/opposite Parties will be at liberty to contest the said consumer compliant by submitting WV within the statutory period, since the date of receiving the amended copy of consumer complaint.

Let the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and also to be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri by email.