Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/1388/2016

AXIS BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDRA RAI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.NARESH CHOURASIA

22 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 29.07.2016 passed in C.C.No.291/2015 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

AXIS BANK, HOSHANGABAD                                                                         …                 APPELLANT

 

           Versus

 

NARENDRA RAI.                                                                                               …             RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :     ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :     MEMBER

     

                                      O R D E R

 

22.05.2024

 

      Shri Naresh Chourasia, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri T. R. Saini, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:                  

                   This appeal filed by the opposite party/appellant- Axis Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) is directed against the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hoshangabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 291/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) has been allowed.

 

-2-

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant after pledging some gold ornaments had obtained loan from the opposite party-bank. It is alleged that despite of repayment of loan with interest, the opposite party bank without any notice to the complainant auctioned the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission by filing complaint against the opposite party seeking relief.  The opposite party-bank was proceeded ex-parte.  The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the bank make calculation regarding repayment of loan and adjust the amount of auctioned gold ornaments towards loan amount and refund the balance amount to complainant. Compensation of Rs.7,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded.

3.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record and the impugned order, we find the complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that on 03.08.12 he pledging the golden articles (market value of which Rs.2,12,431.80/-) under the ‘Gold Loan Scheme’ had obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- from the bank.

4.                The word ‘Pledge’ is defined under Section 172 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 as “The bailment of goods as security for payment of a

-3-

debt or performance of a promise is called pledge”. The bailor in this case called the ‘pawnor’ and the bailee is called ‘pawnee’. Similarly, the ‘bailment’ is defined under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as “A ‘bailment’ is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the ‘bailor’ and the person to whom they are delivered is called the ‘bailee’.

5.                In both the above sections, there is clear mention that bailment of goods is pledge and delivery of goods by one person to other for some purpose is bailment. In the present case, the complainant had given bailment (i.e. gold articles) to the bank (i.e. pledged) with the bank for some purpose (i.e. for obtaining loan) and the bank did not return the same.

6.                The term ‘consumer’ has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) as follows:-

                        (d) ‘consumer’ means any person who—

(i)  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is

-4-

made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) (hires or avails of) any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose).

Explanation—For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

 

The term “service” is defined in Section 2(1)(o) as follows:

(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking,

financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

 

7.                On going through the aforesaid definition of ‘consumer’ we find that a consumer is a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or hires or avails of) any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, however, on going through the above definition of consumer we find that it does not include the word pledge and bailment.

-5-

8.                It is thus clear from the aforesaid that for filing a complaint before the District Commission, the complainant has to be a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act or he hires or avails of any service for a consideration. Here in the present case, the complainant cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ in view of the fact he pledged gold articles with the bank for obtaining loan and his remedy lies under the provisions of Indian Contract Act and not under the provisions Consumer Protection Act as the dispute is not a consumer dispute.  

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of a considered view that the complainant is not competent to approach the District Commission seeking relief by taking recourse of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The District Commission fell in error in entertaining the complaint which did not disclose any consumer dispute as defined under Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.              Therefore, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

              (A. K. Tiwari)                     (Dr.Srikant Pandey)      

                 Acting President                       Member