DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
Consumer Complaints Nos | : | CC/398/09&399/09 |
Date of Institution | : | 12/10/2009 |
| | | |
Punjab National Bank
Branch Office
Dev Nagar
New Delhi
..........Complainant
Versus
Ms. Kanchan Diwan
Advocate
Office / Res -15 Ramjas Teachers
Quarters, Upper Anand Parbat,
New Delhi-110005
…….Opposite Party
ORDER
Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President
The parties being common, the aforesaid two complaints are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated, the complaints have been filed by the complainant M/s Punjab National Bank against Mrs Kanchan Diwan , an advocate, alleging that she was guilty of deficiency in service while advising the bank with regard to a document.
The complaints have been contested on various grounds but in our considered opinion both the complaints can be disposed of on the ground that the complainant bank had obtained the services of the OP for commercial purposes and, therefore, does not qualify as a consumer U/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a company and therefore cannot maintain a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. We draw our strength from the following judgments :-
In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”
In the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only. Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”
Consequently, we hold that the complaints are not maintainable, these are hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to parties free of cost as per law.
The Original order shall be placed in Case bearing no. 398/09 and its copy shall be kept in Case bearing no. 399/09.
File be consigned to R/R.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________
( S N SHUKLA ) ( RAKESH KAPOOR )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
