In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 240 / 2011.
1) M/s. Well Worth Pharmaceuticals,
Room No. 79 & 80, Mehta Building,
55, Biplabi Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) ICICI Bank Ltd.,
ICICI Bank House, 2nd Floor,
3A, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700019. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 11 Dated 25/04/2012.
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant M/s. Well Worth Pharmaceuticals against the o.p. ICICI Bank Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.14 million with o.p. and o.p. sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.14 million vide their credit arrangement letter dt.26.9.08 which was duly accepted by complainant and the o.p. refused said sanction vide letter dt.30.9.08 and that too was duly accepted by complainant. Thereafter complainant completed post sanctioned formalities and o.p. realized processing fees of Rs.1,57,304/- from complainant inclusive all taxes for such sanctioned of loan prior to disbursement of cash credit limit, but o.p. could not disburse the cash credit limit till the date of filing of this case.
Complainant took up the matter and various pleadings were held and o.p. did not pay heed to the request of the complainant and did not disburse the cash credit limit. From the petition of complaint, Complainant nowhere mentioned for which purpose the said limit was asked for and it is to be noted here that there is no mention to the effect that the said amount was sought for the livelihood of the members of the family of the Board of Directors of the company concern and it has to be construed that the said amount was sought for by complainant company from o.p. for commercial purpose. Here it is to be mentioned that the matter was heard ex parte against o.p. After passing of hearing of argument ex parte subsequently o.p. appeared with show cause, written version and cost and o.p. was directed to cause service of the same to the complainant for consideration on the date of delivery of judgment, but ld. lawyer of o.p. could not file any document showing service of the copy of the w/v and show cause to the complainant.
In view of the above we are of the view that the instant complaint case does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ envisaged in Sec 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act and complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ in the instant case and the instant case is not maintainable.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment and complainant is at liberty to agitate this issue in proper Forum on the self-same cause of action.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-____ _____Sd-_____ _______Sd-_______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
