MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant IA/189/2017 arising out of the complaint case bearing No. CC/370/2017 has been filed by the Applicants/O.Ps challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground that the subject issue is related to commercial activities and Consumer Fora lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such complaint as per provision envisaged under the Act.

          Before arriving at the conclusive finding, we would like to have a brief discussion on the points which the Ld. Advocate for the Applicants/O.Ps had tried to highlight while challenging the Consumer Fora’s jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in question.

          As submitted, the Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 herein are partners of Complainant No. 1, partnership firm.  The said partners, as per its own averment at para 4 of the complaint read with para 3 of the same, used to conduct business of providing goods and services for water pollution control for earning their livelihood. 

          The complaint, as contended, was absolutely devoid of any averment of self-employment that necessitated for an issue implicated with commercial activities to be accommodated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The Complainant No. 1, as submitted, maintains a Current Account bearing No. 011010200013642 and Over Draft Account as well bearing OD Account No. 916030012546337 with Golpark Branch of Axis Bank.  Besides, it also maintains a Current Account bearing no. 25901020006569 with Baruipur Branch and also a same account, number not mentioned in the complaint, with Berhampur Branch of the said Bank.

          The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the Complainant No. 1, as alleged, because of its partners having good business relationship with the O.P. Bank, maintains a substantial amount of fixed deposit with the Axis Bank Limited.  A part of the said fixed deposit bearing Account No. 915040024089556 amounting to Rs.22,00,000/- was kept as collateral security against Overdraft Account being maintained with the said Golpark Branch of the said Bank.

          The facts and circumstances narrated above, as continued,  has made it clear that the transactions in question which are the subject matter of the instant issue relates to commercial activities which are beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As further continued, the matter was brought to the notice of the Ld. District Forum which, without considering the merit of the application, passed the impugned order.

          With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the I.A. to be allowed.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainants submitted before the Bench that the instant issue had been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court.  He went on to submit that at page No. 42 of the complaint there was clear averment as to the fact that the Complainants used to do the business for earning their livelihood.  Therefore, as he continued, there should not be any question against the maintainability of the complaint.

          We have perused the papers on record and considered the submissions on behalf of both sides.  It appears that a petition on the instant issue has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court but no stay order has since been passed by the Hon’ble High Court on the instant issue.

          It further appears that the Complainants had so far extended their services to different organizations including different Government offices with praiseworthy performance.  The record of transactions and credentials in respect of their services speak in favour of vastness of their activities which cannot be self-operated.  Besides, the existence of Current Account and Overdraft Account facility being supported with substantial collateral security indicates only in favour of the activities to be a commercial one. 

          In this context, we would like to rely on the decision passed by the Hon’ble National commission in FA No. 306 of 2012 [Sutlej Industries Limited – vs. – Punjab National Bank], at para 8, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed, “The complainant/appellant had opened a current account with the respondent bank for the purpose of carrying out its business activities.  The purpose behind opening the said account therefore was to serve the commercial interests of the company.  Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the services of the bank were hired or availed by the complainant for a commercial purpose” and accordingly, was pleased to hold that the complaint in respect of Current Account is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

          We have seen that the complaint was very much explicit about the Complainants’ activities to be a commercial one but we have not seen in the complaint or anywhere else in the record any averment that the said commercial activities were meant for earning livelihood of the Complainants by way of self-employment.

          Such being the circumstances, we are afraid, it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the instant complaint.

          Hence, ordered, that the instant IA/189/2017 be and the same is allowed and disposed of accordingly.  Consequently, the Complaint Case No. CC/370/2017 also stands dismissed being not maintainable.