West Bengal

StateCommission

A/733/2018

Smt. Chitra Rani Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Prasanta Banerjee

02 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/733/2018
( Date of Filing : 20 Aug 2018 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 06/08/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/353/2018 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
 
1. Smt. Chitra Rani Banerjee
W/o Sri Tapan Banerjee, 244, Chittaranjan Colony, 3/81, Raja S.C. Mullick Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700 032.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Block-C, 3rd Floor, Kolkata -700 016.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Dated : 02 Jul 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—II in Complaint Case No. CC/353/2018 rejecting the complaint observing the same not fit for admission since the transaction made between the OP Bank and the Complainant was for commercial purpose and accordingly, was barred from being covered under the C.P Act, 1986 as per exemption clause envisaged therein under Section 2(i)(d). The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondent/OP. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the Ld. District Forum had ordered against the admission of the complaint observing the subject transaction a commercial one without assigning any reason. The case, as he continued to submit, should have been admitted first and the decision should have been arrived at only after allowing the parties an opportunity of being heard on merit. He prayed for the case to be remanded to Ld. District Forum for hearing the same on merit and passing reasoned order examining all aspects including the nature of the transaction in question.

Perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant. The impugned order appears to be cryptic and not explicit as to why the subject transaction should be treated as a commercial one. A loan taken from the financial institution is not always to be treated as a commercial transaction as per provision laid down in the C.P Act, 1986. Section 2(i)(d) ibid has explained unambiguously that even a person making a commercial transaction for earning his/her livelihood by way of self employment should come within the meaning of consumer. Impugned judgment and order seems to have been passed without taking into consideration the above provision of the C.P Act, 1986. From that point of view, the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant appears to be tenable.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Appeal be and the same stands allowed in part. The case be sent on remand to the Ld. District Forum for hearing the case on merit and disposing it of by passing a reasoned order. No order as to costs. The Appellants are directed to appear before the Ld. District forum on 18.07.2019

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.