Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Complainant/respondent applied for a term loan of                     Rs.15 Crores from the petitioner bank for establishing a luxury Redison Hotel.  Petitioner while issuing a loan sanction memo asked the complainant/respondent to deposit Rs.8 Lacs towards appraisal fee which was deposited by the respondent from 19.07.2002 to 15.01.2003.  However, at the later stage, petitioner bank conveyed to

-2-

the complainant/respondent that the loan amount could not be given on account of some alleged complaint against the complainant.  Complainant/respondent wrote letter dated 12.09.2004 asking for refund of the appraisal fee.  Petitioner wrote letter dated 13.04.2004 stating that the complainant/respondent had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction within the stipulated period and also telephonically informed that the sum of Rs.3.75 Lacs had been credited in the respondent’s Account towards part refund of the total amount of Rs.8 Lacs.  Respondent, thereafter, wrote letter on 18.07.2004 to the petitioner seeking payment of balance amount of Rs.4.25 Lacs with interest @ 14.75% on the entire sum of Rs.8 Lacs from the date it was received till the date of refund which was not done.  After issuing legal notices, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.4.25 Lacs with interest @ 14.75% p.a. with monthly rests for value received on Rs.8 Lacs from 19.07.2002 i.e. the date of payment till 15.07.2004 i.e the date of refund of                    Rs.3.75 Lacs and thereafter @ 14.75% p.a. with monthly rests from 15.07.2004 till date of payment/refund of the aforesaid amount

-3-

including interest pendent lite.  Rs.1 Lac were claimed as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as costs.

          District Forum allowed the complainant and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.4.25 Lacs to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization.  Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.3.75 Lacs from the date of deposit till the date of realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the respondent/complainant was a business enterprise and wanted the loan to further its business/commercial activity the complaint filed by it was not maintainable; that the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  For this he relies upon a recent decision of this Commission in “Canara Bank vs. Vinay Tractor Enterprises (Revision Petition No.1700 of 2010 decided on 12^th May 2011)”  in which on similar facts it has been held as under:

-4-

      “6.     There is yet another reason why the complaint could not be entertained by a consumer forum and the reason is that the complainant is a business enterprise and wanted the loan to further his business/commercial activity and to that end sought a loan of Rs.2 Crores.  Going by the definition of the term ‘consumer’ as it stands modified by the Amending Act of 1962 of 2002 effective from 15^th March, 2003 any person who avails the service of a service provider for commercial purposes is excluded from the definition of consumer.  In this case, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complainant could not be deemed to be ‘consumer’ and was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer fora for redressal of his grievance.

Respondent is a business enterprise.  It had taken loan for business purpose.  Complaint filed by the respondent/complainant as not maintainable as it was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We respectfully follow the judgment cited above.  Revision petition is allowed.  Orders of the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.

-5-

However, liberty is reserved with the complainant/respondent  to seek redressal of its grievance in any other forum along with an application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking exclude of the time spent in the consumer fora while calculating the limitation in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.