Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

     This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank for not refunding amount of deposits kept in the years 1997, 1998 and 2000 though those deposits were matured respectively on 12.03.1998, 28.05.1998 and 17.09.2001.   It is undisputed that those deposits were kept as per the requirement of the Bank to obtain bank guarantee and which was obtained in connection with the Current accounts and the credit facilities availed by the Complainant for its business.

     Opposite Party appeared through Goyanka Law Associates but failed to file any written version and also did not remain present after initial appearance.  In the given circumstances, after giving an opportunity to lead evidence, the matter is heard today.

             Heard Ms.Martina S, Advocate for the Complainant.  Perused the record. 

     The credit facility and bank guaranty were obtained for the business purpose as mentioned in complaint paragraph no.4.  Further, as stated in paragraph 7 these deposits which were mentioned in detailed in paragraph 6 of the complaint were kept as per the conditions of the Bank before extending any bank guaranty in connection with the credit facilities, supra.  Thus, these deposits are not the separate transaction, but they were kept to obtain credit facilities and the Bank guaranty for the purpose of business.  It is thus a commercial transaction.  As per the definition of ‘consumer’, once the services are availed for commercial purpose, the Complainant cannot be a consumer.  A reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Economic Transport Organisation V/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., reported in 2010 CTJ (361) SC.  Therefore, we find that the present complaint cannot be accepted as a consumer complaint.  Furthermore, as per the statement made by the Complainant there is a continuous cause of action since deposits amounts were not refunded.  As earlier recounted, the Complainant alleged that above deposits were to mature well back in the year 2002 and therefore, if the deposits are part of this particular statement of the accounts, i.e. settling the credit facilities and the bank guarantees involved, then cause of action arose in the year 2002.  Therefore, it is not the case of continuous cause of action.  On this count also it can be held that complaint is barred by limitation.

     For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the complaint.  Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

                  (i)          Complaint stands dismissed.

                (ii)          In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.