ORDER

13.10.2023

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complainant has been filed by complainants seeking direction to pay Rs. 2,18,884/- with interest, cost and compensation.
3. It is stated by the complainant that vide letter dated 18.05.2019 the OP sanctioned a credit facility to complainant wherein a cash credit facility for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and by virtue of letter of credit a facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was provided to complainant on mutually agreed terms and conditions. It is stated that the said credit facility was later enhanced by OP.
4. It is stated that the there were only two conditions where the prepayment charges were leviable by OPs i.e. repayment ahead of Schedule or not availing the facility within sixty days of the grant. The charges of 2% or 4% would be leviable only in these two situations and not in any other circumstances.
5. It is stated by the complainant that Bank account maintained by the complainant w.e.f. from 10.07.2022 to 25.08.2022 only for the reason that the renewal was not carried out by the complainant with the OP No.1. It is further stated by the complainant that OP Bank cannot compel and force the complainant to continue banking relations with OP No. 1.
6. It is stated that the complainant informed the OP No.3 that the complainant is switching over to a nationalized bank due to service concerns.
7. It is stated that OPs have illegally retained an amount of Rs. 40,00,200/- as foreclosure charges. 
8. It is stated that the freezing the bank account of complainant by OP1 bank caused a loss of Rs, 50 Lakhs approximately. It is further submitted that as against the terms and conditions of credit facility agreement between complainant and OP the OP illegally.
9. It is stated that on 03.01.2023 the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP to recover the illegally retained money amounting to Rs. 40,00,200/- Rs. 15 Lakh for loss suffered etc. However OPs failed to revert. Hence the present complaint seeking refund of 40,00,200/- with interest cost and compensation.  
10. We have perused the contentions raised in the complaint and record of the case. At the outset we need to decide whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
11. In this regard, we find it appropriate to quote the definition of 'consumer' as defined under section 2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019 which runs as follows:-

(7) "Consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

12.  Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Shushma Goel Vs. Punjab National Bank, II (2011) CPJ 270 (NC) has ruled that

"it is abundantly clear that the entire matter in the complaint filed by Smt. Sushma Goel relates to operation of a Bank Account maintained by a commercial organization for a commercial purpose". It has further been ruled that "the complaint will fall within the exception clause contained in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended in 2002. In terms of this provision, the RP / Complainant does not qualify to be consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".

Facts of the present case are similar to the aforesaid matter, decided by Hon'ble National Commission.

13. As per the facts narrated in the present complaint the Complainant who is a Partnership Firm had taken a loan from OP1 apparently in order to raise funds for business / commercial purpose.
14. In view of aforesaid discussions, observations, provisions of law and decided authorities on the issue this Commission is of the considerable view that complainant is not consumers within the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and therefore present complaint is not maintainable and therefore same is rejected.
     
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 13.10.2023.

(SANJAY KUMAR )                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER                       MEMBER