ORDER                                 Dated:  27-01-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant has filed this complaint on 15-12-2014 and alleged that he was having business transactions at Hong Kong and usually makes the payments through OP bank to transfer  Hong Kong Dollars from his account. On 17.05.2012 the rate of the Hong Kong Dollar was Rs 7.04 and he authorized OP bank to transfer 2,25,013 Hong Kong Dollars from his account and for the said transaction the actual amount comes to Rs. 15,84,091/- however the OP had wrongly debited the amount of Rs. 17,42,664/- from his account without any authority or without his consent.  The complainant was surprised to notice that a sum of Rs. 1,58,573/- has been wrongly deducted without any proper justification.  Complainant was constrained to give a written complaint dated 25.05.2012 to the General Manager, ICICI bank but to no avail.Complainant further alleged that a similar transaction was carried out by the him with OP bank on 19.01.2012 whereby an excess sum of Rs. 35,896/- was wrongly debited by OP . Complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.09.2014 and asked the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 1,74,469/- but OP did not comply with the said notice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant prayed to direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 1,74,469/- which was wrongly debited by the OP from the account of the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of wrong debit till realization to the complainant and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant  for mental pain and agony and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges.
2. In reply, OP alleged that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the account of the complainant i.e. 081605003668 exists in the name of company “Galaxy Electronics” which deals in electronic items like LED lights.  The account in question was being used admittedly for business purposes. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  OP further alleged that the currency conversion happens on card rate of the bank and hence the conversion happened as per applicable rate and there are no excess debits.  OP as a goodwill gesture reversed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 31.01.2014 on the bank’s transaction processing charges and the reversal was processed by the trade relationship manager due to the complainant’s anxiety. OP stated that complainant has sent a letter dated 02.07.2013 to OP and the same was duly replied by the OP vide reply dated 02.08.2013. OP also raised the objection that the complaint is time barred by limitation as alleged dispute had arisen on 19.01.2012 and 17.05.2012 but the complaint was filed  in December 2014 beyond the prescribed period of limitation. OP denied rest of the allegations and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by the OPs and supported his complaint.
4. In support of  his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy of legal notice (Ex. CW-1/1) and courier receipt (Ex. CW-1/2).
5.  In support of reply OP1  filed affidavit of Sh. Santosh Singh , Authorised Representative along with documents i.e. reply (Ex. DW-1)
6.  Both the parties filed their written arguments.
7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether complaint is time barred?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

      (c) Relief.

8.  Mere perusal of the complaint clarifies that the complainant has failed to mention his  account number with the bank while the OP clarified that the complainant’s account no. is 081605003668  and it exists in the name of company “Galaxy Electronics”. This complaint is not filed by authorized person of this company. It is pertinent to mention herein that the allegations made in the complaint relates to the business transactions therefore it is within the ambit of commercial purpose.

9.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Laxmi Engineering Works V/s PSG Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428 in Para no. 24 held as under. 

   (i)the explanation added by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance 24 of 1993) with effect from 18.06.1993 is clarificatory in nature and applied to all pending proceedings.

   (ii)Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a ‘commercial purpose’ within the meaning of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ in section 2 (d) of the ACT is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstance of each case.

   (iii)A person who buys goods and use them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment is within the definition of the expression ‘’consumer’’.

10. The complainant alleged on 17/05/2012 that OP was to  debit the amount of Rs.15,84,091/- but wrongly debited Rs 17,42,664/- from the account of the complainant  hence a sum of Rs. 1,58,573/- was deducted by OP without any authority and consent. He further alleged that on 19.01.2012 the OP wrongly debited a sum of Rs. 35,896/- hence the cause of action arose on 17.05.2012 as well as 19.01.2012 but the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 15.12.2014 which clarify that this complaint was presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hence the complaint is time barred, too.

11. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and present complaint is time   barred too by virtue of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . As this complaint is not maintainable, therefore, there is no need to decide the remaining points of consideration. Hence complaint is dismissed accordingly. 

     12. Both the parties will bear their own cost. 

           13.  Copy of the order made available to the parties free of cost as per law.

   File  be consigned to record room.

Announced on………