STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2011)

Iqbal Singh Ahluwalia s/o Labh Singh Ahluwalia r/o House No.91, Phase-VI, Mohali, partner of News Time Broadcasting having office at quite office No.6, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

ICICI Bank through its Manager SCO No.485,486, Sector 35, Chandigarh

              .... OP

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Karamjeet Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    Succinctly put, the complainant, who was doing marketing business, had a current bank account with the OP and he also got POS machine set up from them in May 2011 for which Rs.3,000/- was charged.  At the time of installation, the OP told the complainant that the machine would print only if the debit/credit card was valid.  On 21.6.2011, the sales of the complainant were put on hold and upon enquiry he was told to collect the required documents from the card holders/purchasers and supply the same to the OP.  Till 21.6.2011 the sale amount went upto Rs.3,10,519/- which ultimately swelled to Rs.69,48,783.46, but the OP did not make any payment, even after repeated requests, though they regularly charged 2% from the sales made by him.  Left with no alternative, the complainant sent a registered legal notice dated 16.7.2011 but to no avail.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant at the admission stage and have also gone through the record.

3.                      A perusal of the complaint shows that it was a commercial transaction in which the complainant was engaged in generating profits which, according to the complainant, swelled to Rs.69,48,783.46 till the filing of the complaint.  The Consumer Fora is precluded from entertaining the complaints with respect to the service rendered for a commercial transaction. The complainant, therefore, does not come under the category of a ‘consumer’ entitled to file the present complaint.

4.                      It also appears from the contents of the complaint that it was the complainant who was rendering service to the OP and not vice versa.  The OP was, therefore, the consumer of the services of the complainant whereas the complainant was the service provider who was selling the products through the machine installed in his premises.  The complainant does not fall under the definition of a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he cannot maintain the present complaint.

5.                      According to the complainant, he had installed a POS machine in his premises and the OP had regularly charged 2% from the sales made by him through the said machine.  These charges were deducted from his account, but the balance sale amount has not been paid by the OP to him so far.  In order to adjudge the entitlement of the complainant and the liability of the OP, all the sales made through the POS machine shall have to be considered, the total amount of the same and the 2% commission will have to be ascertained and only thereafter a decision can be taken as to what amount is due to the complainant.  The entire matter is that of accounting in which examination of a number of documents would be required and in these summary proceedings it would not be advisable to go through the conflicting claims of the parties.  Otherwise also, it is, in fact, a suit for recovery, based on the sale proceeds made by the complainant, which should have been filed by him before the civil court and not before this Commission.

6.                      Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case which should be entertained for regular hearing by this Commission. The compliant is accordingly dismissed in limine. The complainant would be at liberty to approach the proper Court for redress of his grievances, if so advised.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

11^th August, 2011

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg