31.03.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.02.02.2023 passed in CC.No.247/2022 by Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore, which dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before District Commission alleging a deficiency in service in deducting an amount of Rs.21,79,273.66/-, NOC take over charge of Rs. 2,63,250/- in totally the OP has collected deducted Rs.28,82,178/- + 18% GST in totally the OP has deducted Rs.28,82,178/- and sought for refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.   After admission, the District Commission issued a notice to the OP and OP filed their version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the transactions took place between complainant and OP is commercial one and there is no consumer dispute arose.  The loan was availed for the purpose of development of an industry run by the complainant.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2.      The appellant further submits that after hearing, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act.   In fact, the complainant is a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  He availed a loan for the purpose of further development of the Industry and the loan which was availed was pre-closed by complainant at that time, the Opposite Party have deducted a sum of Rs.28,82,178/- including GST which is against to norms and guidelines of  RBI.  The said facts were not considered by the District Commission. The transaction between this Appellant and Respondent is only a consumer and service provider relationship and there is no any commercial transactions exist.  In spite of that the District Commission dismissed the complaint without any reasons and hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and remand back the matter for retrial a fresh in the interest of justice and equity.

3.      On perusal of the certified copy of order and Memorandum of Appeal, we noticed that the District Commission on 02.02.2023 has dismissed the complaint upon the version received by Opposite Party and also upon the preliminary point of maintainable.   We noticed,  that the complainant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act 2013 which is engaged in manufacture of commercial water purifier, waste water treatment plant etc.,  The said company represented by a Finance Director filed a complaint alleging a deficiency in service in deducting an amount of Rs.28,82,175/- at the time of pre-closure  of the loan.  Whereas, the District Commission had appreciated the establishment and considered that the loan was sanctioned for the purpose of improvement of the said manufacturing unit and hold that the complainant not fall under the definition of consumer and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. 

4.      The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law.   we are of the opinion that, the complainant in his complaint has nowhere alleged any dispute with respect to the functioning of the Company and the loan was availed for the purpose further development of the said water purifier unit and waste water treatment plant etc., Accordingly, the loan was granted by the Respondents  and once the loan was granted either for commercial purpose for any domestic purpose, the relationship between the loaner and loanee amounts to consumer and service provider transactions.  If any dispute arose with respect to the payments, non-payments, preclosure of the loan definitely amounts to a consumer dispute and complainant is fall under the definition of the “Consumer”.   We noticed the Respondent/OPs in their version have not taken any contention with respect to the commercial activity of the complainant and the dispute raised by complainant is only respect to excess deduction of amount of Rs.28,82,178/- which definitely fall under the definition of consumer dispute of Consumer Protection Act.  The District Commission has wrongly considered the defence taken by Respondent/OP and dismissed the complaint as he is not a consumer.   The order passed by the District Commission is illegal and not in accordance with Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission in its original number and District Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number and proceed with the trial by offering both the parties to file their affidavit and documents and adjudicate the mater on merits expeditiously.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.

The impugned order dated 02-02-2023 passed in CC.No.247/2022 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore is hereby set-aside.

The matter is remanded back to the District Commission in its original number and District Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number and proceed with the trial by offering both the parties to file their affidavit and documents and adjudicate the mater on merits expeditiously.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

sd/-                                                             sd/-

MEMBER                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

SP*