BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.312 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.7.2015

Date of Decision :27.7.2015

M/s Neera Industries, Shop No.14, New Market Chowk Adda Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar through its Prop.Uma Shankar Khemka.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s India Bulls Finance Services Ltd, India Bulls House, 448/451, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

2. M/s India Bulls Finance Services Ltd, Navi Baradari, Near Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vijay Prabhakar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite parties are doing the business of finance services and it had advanced a loan of Rs.60,00,000/- to the complainant on 1.5.2011 @ Rs.12% per annum interest. It was agreed between the parties that the rate of interest shall be floating as per the market rate. The opposite parties had to return the loan amount in monthly installments of Rs.86083/- and it was to be paid in equal installments of 120 months. The opposite parties charged interest @ Rs. 12% per annum for one month only, but then it started to increase the rate of interest very soon. It was increased from 12% to 12.50%, then 12.75%, 13.25%, 13.75%, 14.25%, 14.75%, 15%. By this rate of interest, the complainant had to pay Rs.27,54,656/- as excess amount than the agreed amount. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.6,49,371/- alongwith damages and litigation expenses.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant on maintainability of the present complaint.

3. Complainant is a firm. It is not case of the complainant that it is doing the business to earn livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant took loan of Rs.60 Lacs from the opposite party finance company. So, obviously the loan was taken for commercial purposes. Since the loan was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose, as such, it can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

4. Consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.07.2015 Member Member President