DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/338/2019
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Shri Sanjay Gupta
Properietor of
M/s. Bansal Cycle Works
Shop No. E – 1-20 Ground Floor
Sector – 16, Rohini, Delhi
.....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.
Through its Directors
Office At -16/12, WEA, 3rd Floor,
Arya Samaj Road Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Membe
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date (in short the act) by Shri Sanjay Gupta (in short the complainant) as proprietor of M/s. Bansal Cycle Works Shop No. E-1- 20, Ground Floor, Sector – 16, Rohini, Delhi inter alia pleading therein that he had taken Enterprise Loan facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh Only) from Jana Small
Finance Bank Ltd., (in short OP) in the year 2017 vide loan account no. 30218850002434 along with co applicant Smt. Anjali Gupta. They deposited original documents of property No. Flat No. 96, 3rd Floor, Block F, Pkt – 5, Sector – 16, Rohini Delhi with the OP to secure payment of loan. Complainant made full and final payment of the loan account to the OP after taking new loan from IFL Housing Finance Ltd.. Although complainant and co applicant Ms. Anjali Gupta have repaid the entire loan amount to OP but OP has not returned their original documents. Vide letter dated 07/12/2019 OP informed the complainant that some original property documents were misplaced. Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000,00/- for loss of original documents and thereby covers loss of value of property, mental agony, harassment and physical pain to the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.
2. The case is at admission stage. We have perused the case file and heard Shri Durgesh K. Dwivedi Learned Counsel for complainant.
3. Admittedly nature of loan was Enterprise Loan facility of Rs. 10 Lacs loan which was taken in the name of Proprietorship Firm i.e. M/s. Bansal Cycle works which is situated at shop number E-1- 20, Ground Floor, Sector – 16, Rohini, Delhi.
4. The word consumer has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) (i) of the Act as under :
(d) 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 obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.
5[Explanation. for the purposes of this clause. commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employme
5. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Smt. Shushma Goel vs Punjab National Bank in Revision Petition No. 134/2011 vide order dated
07 April, 2011 observed
7. From this and the evidence produced on behalf of the Complainant before the fora below, 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. The revision petition itself claims in para 3.1 that Revisionist is engaged in business of the share trading and is an authorized agent of M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd (herein referred to as Company) a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 4353/4C, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
8. By this admission, 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 a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in our view, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttrakhand has rightly rejected the Consumer Complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner.
6. In ICICI Bank Ltd. And Ors. vs Mccoy Silicons Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No. 316/2018 vide its daily order dated 03 January, 2017 which referring to decisions of National Commission in consumer case No. 57/15 titled as Ritman Infra Ltd. Vs. Indu Sindh Bank decided on 05.02.2015, consumer case No. 39/13 titled as National San Fine O Chem Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India decided on 12.04.13, Complaint case No. 11/2007 titled as Samkit Art and Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India decided on 14.08.2014 held that loan in respect of business is a commercial activity and not covered under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. Complainant is already carrying on business. He availed enterprise loan facility from OP in the name of his business concern Bansal Cycle Works which he had been operating from a shop. It is therefore, evident that the loan in question was taken in the name of his business concern for enhancement/expansion of the business. As such he is not a consumer having taken loan for commercial purpose.
8. Reference may also be made to Gowhar Riyaz Khan vs. M/s. Ansal Housing and construction Ltd. & Anr in FA No. 410/2018 date of decision 16 April 2018 in which case National Commission while dismissing the complaint holding the complainant not a consumer for purpose of the Act, observed that
It is clear after reading the Complaint that the Complainant was already self-employed owning her own business in the name of M/s. F.F. Handicrafts, which she had been operating from shop, E-137, Sector-55, Noida, (U.P.) and not from her residence, i.e. K-35, Batla House, Zamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110020. It is clearly established from the record that the Appellant had booked the said unit in the name of her business for enhancement/expansion of her existing business. Hence, the Appellant/Complainant cannot be covered under the Explanation given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by which the only exception is for a person who has bought goods and used by him and services availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In the present Complaint, the Appellant /Complainant being the sole proprietor of M/s. F.F. Handicrafts and operating the said firm from E-137, Sector-55, Noida, (U.P.) had booked the said unit to enhance/expand her business and for better opportunity and prospects.
9. The complaint is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable here as complainant is not a consumer. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4 th Day of March 2020.
