BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 02/06/2014
Date of Order : 03/06/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 413/2014
Between
M/s. Agencia Commercial Maritima Logistics Pvt. Ltd., | :: | Complainant |
53/3239, 1st Floor, Bhuvaneshwary Road, Ponnurunni, Vyttila, Cochin – 682 019, Rep. by its Manager, Accounts, Mrs. Sindhu Joseph. | | (By Adv. Joy Thattil Ittoop, Chittoor Road, Cochin – 682 012.) |
And
1. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Mart, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, C.M. Vasudev (Chairman) & Mr. Aditya Puri (Managing Director). 2. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd., MKS Towers, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Prakash Parameswaran. | | (Notice not sent) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Admittedly, the complainant a private limited company availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 336 (SC), held that corporate entity is also covered under the definition of 'person' as defined in Section 2 (1) (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. As per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, if a 'person' avails of any service for any commercial purpose, it is not included in the definition of 'consumer' unless such service availed by him was exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
3. In the instant case, there is no mention anywhere in the complaint that the transaction was done for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, the complainant company does not fall under the purview of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon'ble supreme Court in Economic Transport Organization Vs. Cheran Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2010 CPR (SC) (CP) 379, held in para 25 as follows :-
“We may also notice that Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act was amended by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15-03-2003 by adding the words “but does not include a person who avails of services for any commercial purpose” in the definition of 'consumer'. After the said amendment, if the service of the carrier had been availed for any commercial purpose then the person availing the service will not be a consumer and consequently complaints will not be maintainable in such cases.”
4. Resultantly, we are only to hold that the remedy of the complainant lies elsewhere. The proceedings in this complaint stands closed with a direction to the complainant to receive back the complaint and the related documents to be submitted before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of June 2014.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
