Delhi

New Delhi

CC/38/2011

DIAMOND POCKET BOOKS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. AXIS BANK - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 Case No.CC. 38/2011                                                                           Dated:

In the matter of:

1. M/s Diamond Magazine Pvt. Ltd.
2. M/s Diamond Pocket Books Pvt. Ltd.

Both having its office at

X-30, Okhla Industrial Area, Ph.II, New Delhi

....COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

Axis Bank,

Through its Asstt. Vice President(SME),

5^TH Floor, Ashoka Estate,

24, Barakhamba Road,New Delhi-110001.                                                                                              ....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

NIPUR CHANDNA- MEMBER

O R D E R

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainants are private limited company duly registered under the companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of printing publishing trading and distributing of books etc. 

2.     It is alleged that the complainant company had availed an over draft facility for a sum of Rs.100 lacs vide sanction letter dt. 6.3.2007 issued by OP.  It is further stated that the said facility initially sanctioned in 2007 was subsequently renewed in the year 2008. It is alleged that the OP vide letter dt. 20.1.2010 called upon the complainant to renew the said facility by furnishing the requisite documents within three working days of the receipt of the letter.  The complainant vide letter dt. 22.1.2010 requested the bank for closer of CC Limit against both the account and deposited a sum of Rs. 1 crore each vide cheque No.244383 and 287351 dt. 20.1.2010 against the OD limit.  While going through the statement of account it was revealed that the OP bank charged a sum of Rs.82,725/- towards renewal charges.  The complainant requested OP to refund the renewal charges arbitrarily charged by it but all in vain, the complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of their grievance.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  OP has filed  its written statement and stated that on the expiry of the sanction letter, various mail correspondence were exchanged between the complainants and OP but no formal documents were executed by the complainant regarding the sanction although the facilities were utilized  by complainants  even after the expiry of time limit.  Relying on the verbal representation of the complainant the above noted credit limit were extended for a period of July 2009 to April 2010.  The complainant submitted a letter of closure on 25.1.2010 after a continuous use of limit for a period of 8 months, hence, the OP has rightly charged a sum of Rs.82,725/- and Rs.18,000/- as service charges. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer, hence, the present complaint be dismissed on the sole ground. 

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

 

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.       In the present case, the complainant had availed the credit facility of Rs. 1 crore  with the OP bank for the purpose of carrying out its business activities  which  falls in the category of Commercial purpose.

 

7.       On the issue of commercial transaction, we are guided by Hon’ble National Commission case titled as Rehbar Fin Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Anr.  in which it was held that where transactions between complainant and bank were for commercial purpose – Complainant is not a consumer as envisaged in Sec. 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 – Consumer complaint not maintainable.

 

8.     In the present case, it is not disputed that complainant is limited Company.  It is also an admitted fact that the renewal charges  in respect of which deficiency on the part of the OP is alleged was a over draft facility.  The complainant had availed the credit facility of Rs. 1 crore  with the OP bank for the purpose of carrying out its business activities the purpose behind it, therefore, was to serve the commercial interest of the company.  Therefore, we are of the view, in the present case that the services of the bank were hired or availed by the complainant for a commercial purpose.  Since, the transaction between the parties are of commercial purpose the same is  not covered under the explanation clause carved out under section 2(d) of CP Act. 

 

9.     It was observed that the overdraft facility was meant to earn profits. The present case clearly relates to availing of the services of the OP bank for enjoying an overdraft facility. Clearly, it was a commercial activity done for earning profits only. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the purview of the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The present complaint is therefore, dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant availing any such remedy as may be open to it in law.  File be consigned to Record Room.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Pronounced in open Forum on 02/08/2019

 

                                    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA )

                                              PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA  )                                               (  H.M. VYAS )

       MEMBER                                                               MEMBER