This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted since last 25 years complainant no.1 is dealing with leading manufacturers of pharmaceuticals having significant reputation in the said field and in the month of December, 2012 the complainant no.2 opened an account with the OP12 Bank which inter alia provided that the complainant 1 to enjoy cash credit account to the tune of Rs.1.5 crores and on the basis of such proposal the complainant no.2, on behalf of the complainant 1 agreed to open an account with the OP1 Bank, Brabourne Road Branch.  After compliance of relevant formalities an account bearing no.553044010389 was opened in the said bank.  Fact remains complainant fulfilled the relevant criteria for opening the said account and were assured that service promise shall be made by the bank at all material times and ever since the bank account was made operational and complainant 1 has always maintained the said account sufficiently and in usual course of business complainant 2 had issued two cheques bearing no.201329 and 201318 both of dated 21-05-2013 in favour of M/s. L.G. Life Sciences India Pvt. Ltd. and U.C.B. India Ltd. amounting to Rs.1,41,221/- and Rs.54,835/- respectively.  However on 23-05-2013 the said cheques were returned unpaid with endorsement “insufficient fund” by the OP1 Bank and in this connection it is stated that on the relevant date the account has balance of Rs.81,87,147-31.

          Subsequently, by a letter dated 11-06-2013, complainant 1 was intimated that two cheques amounting to Rs.1,41,221/- and Rs.54,835/- was returned on 23-05-2013 due to some technical reasons and they apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

          Thereafter, complainant 2 again issued a cheque bearing no.201431 dated 03-07-2013 in favour of Wockhardt amounting to Rs.24,731/- and another cheque bearing no.301450 dated 04-07-2013 in favour of Astrazeneca amounting to Rs.1,09,631/- those said cheques were also returned unpaid.

          Due to such sort of act on the part of the bank the customers of the complainant suffered inconvenience and expressed their dissatisfaction and dejection to the complainant and the personnel of said M/s. L.G. Life Sciences India Pvt. Ltd and U.C.B. India Ltd. as well as those of Wockhardt and Astrazeneca had demanded issuance of demand drafts from the complainants in their favour and have also threatened the complainants of initiating criminal action against them and no doubt that situation was created by the OP1 and OP1 is solely responsible for the returning the cheques as on 11-06-2013.

          It is specifically mentioned that the return of cheques by the OP Bank with endorsement for insufficient funds and technical reason is completely baseless and without any foundation and against that account only cash credit account complainants had scope to withdraw and to get such benefit as cash credit limit was Rs.1.5 crores and by that act of the OP no doubt complainants reputation is injured the in the business circle in so many manner and such an act on the part of the OP is no doubt deficiency and for which Bank is solely responsible and by that act the bank has neglected to perform in relation to the service promise to the complainant although sufficient cash credit amount was lying in the said cash credit account but bank did not honour the said cheques.

          In the above circumstance, complainant has prayed for redressal and also for payment of compensation for harassment of the complainant and for damaging his reputation in the market and further for negligent and deficient manner of service complainant has prayed for compensation and other reliefs.

          On the other hand, OP ING Vyasa Bank appeared on 06-02-2014 after receipt of the notice before this Forum by filing vakalatnama and prayed for time but ultimately they did not file any written version for which ultimately the case is heard ex parte.

          Accordingly, after receiving the evidence in chief of the complainant and also accepting the documents as filed by the complainant as material evidence we are compelled to dispose of this complaint in ex parte form.

Decision with Reasons

Particularly in the present case after hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the complainants and also considering the entire record it is found OP Bank got sufficient chance to contest the case.  They appeared, filed vakalatnama but did not file written version but subsequently, the complainant filed the E-chief that was also sent by speed post to the OP and it was received by the OP but OP did not turn up so it is clear that OP had no intention to contest the case for which we are confirmed that we have our good scope to dispose of the case on the basis of ex parte materials as produced by the complainant and also relying upon the documents.

          Accordingly, relying upon the argument as advanced by the complainant and also considering the particular account bearing No.553044010389 in the name of M/s. Bavda Enterprises no doubt it is proved that account was of the OP’s Bank ING Vysya Bank Ltd and after considering the document of the complainant i.e. the statement of the account for the period from 16-05-2013 to 31-05-2013 it is clear that the account type is M-power business account but anyhow this complaint is filed by M/s. Bravda Enterprises, a partnership firm and fact remains the account is a cash credit account not SB Account or not a fixed deposit account.  Complainant 1 Bavda Enterprises had not produced any document in support of their partnership firm and has not also produced any authority on behalf of another partner to file this complaint and at the same time in the complaint there is even no whisper that this business is being run by the complainant for earning their livelihood or the account is a domestic account for their family cause but it is very much clear from the said account that it is a cash credit account for the purpose of upliftment of the entire manufacture pharmaceutical business of the complainants’ firm M/s. Bavda Enterprise for earning more profit.

          Truth is that complainants have not filed the conditions of the cash credit policy but collecting some terms and condition of the cash credit account as per RBI Regulation it is found that there are certain terms and condition on the basis of which the bank may release the amount but complainant has failed to show by showing such agreement of cash credit account that bank has not followed the terms and conditions of the said account but after considering the other cash credit account conditions it is found that action of the bank in this regard is accordance with the terms for granting any cash credit facility account.  So, in absence of production of said cash credit facility account agreement it is impossible to consider the present complaint case.  After considering the status of the present complainant it is found that the present complainant is a pharmaceutical company and the present account is for business purpose and it is a cash credit loan facility account and, in fact, this transaction is not treated as domestic account between the customer and the bank but it is completely for business transaction and it is a cash credit loan facility account that is for the purpose to get more profit in the said business they took that said cash credit loan facility account and nowhere in the complaint it is specifically mentioned that this business is running for the purpose of earning livelihood of the present complainant, moreover, in this case complainant 1 is the account holder and not the complainant 2.  So, as per RBI Guidelines the bank has his right to exercise discretion and jugement for granting any relief in respect of any cheque against the cash credit loan facility account holder and bank can withheld it for any reason, so considering that fact it is clear that present complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP on the ground complainant has failed to produce said agreement for cash credit loan facility account and at the same time this present transaction is for commercial purpose and further it is not a savings bank account of the complainant no.2 or his family.

          So, present transaction or refusal of the cheque by the OP is not in respect of personal transaction but for commercial transaction and this cash credit loan account is also for commercial purpose and it is a loan account.  So, bank is no doubt justified in exercising the power for not honouring the cheque etc. for which we are convinced to hold that complainants are not consumer under the OP Bank in respect of Cash Credit Loan Facility Account because the transaction is completely a business transaction for providing more profit in the said business.  So, as per definition 2(d) and considering the explanation clause we are convinced to hold that present complainant is not a consumer under the OP and at the same time it is proved that complainant obtained that cash credit facility loan account for the commercial purpose and that money was not used by the complainant for exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and for which we are convinced to hold that the complainant’s present complaint is not maintainable and present complainant is not a consumer under the OP in respect of the present transaction.  At the same time complainant has failed to prove what are the terms and conditions for getting such cash credit loan facility account and copy of agreement is no where.  At the same time the present complainant is not entitled to get any redressal in view of the fact that the present benefit is taken from the bank by the OP1 completely for commercial purpose and there is no nexus in between the present transaction with the meaning of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OPs but without any cost.