The revisional case in short is that the complainant/revisionist Prasenjit Das, Managing Director of Napex Pvt. Ltd. as retailer of consumer products wanted to sell the products of Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd. at his establishment and contacted with the company for business. Accordingly, Patanjali Ltd. asked the complainant/revisionist to transfer a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- through Mail Service provided the details of Bank account of the Company. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- to the said account at Bandhan Bank, Kawakhali Branch in the said account of the Patanjali Co. through his own bank account by NEFT payment. Subsequently, the Patanjali Co. in spite of such Bank deposit did not send the goods to the complainant. And then, it was communicated to the complainant by Patanjali that they have furnished the wrong bank details and for that reason, they were unable to deliver the goods, then, the complainant approached the Bank Authority to refund the said amount. But Bank Authority has refused to return back the same and for that reason, the complainant/revisionist has filed the consumer complaint against the Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd. and Bandhan Bank, Kawakhali Branch. The consumer complaint was registered before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri and the case was placed for admission hearing on 09/04/2019. Ld. Forum considered that the complainant was running a business in retailing and marketing and such activities of the complainant’s enterprise was related to commercial purpose. For that reason, the complainant was not categorized to the definition of the consumer as per provisions of CP Act, 1986 and for that reason, the consumer complaint was not admitted.

            Being aggrieved with this order, this revision follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the exact provision of law and has committed a mistake holding the consumer complaint as not consumers and for such reason, the order of Ld. Forum liable to be set aside. The revision was admitted on its own merit and the Ops of the revision was served with notice.

            Accordingly, the Bandhan Bank (OP no. 2) of this revision has recorded its presence through Ld. Advocate Milindo Paul by Vakalatnama. None records the presence of OP no.1 Patanjali Ltd. and District Magistrate, Darjeeling (OP no. 3). At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate Milindo Paul submitted the written note of argument though no agentnama or vakalatnama was there on the side of the OP no. 1 Patanjali Ayurvedic Ltd. The revision was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate S. Dutta of the revision and Ld. Advocate Milindo Paul represented OP no. 2 Bandhan Bank.                       

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            After hearing both sides it comes to our knowledge that Prasenjit Das has filed the consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where he mentioned himself as consumer as well as managing director of Napex private Ltd who engaged himself in the business of retailing and marketing. Ld. Advocate of the respondent no. 2 who also files the written note of argument in respect of respondent no. 1 at the time of his argument mentioned that the complainant in his consumer complainant clearly mentioned that he does a business of goods for resale and such averment in his pleading clearly implies that he does not have filed under the umbrella of consumer as per the section 2 (d) of CP Act, 1986. In support of his argument he referred a judicial decision reported in 1995 SC 1428 in reference to Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG industrial Institute where it was held that as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the consumer disputes must come within the purview of ‘business to consumer disputes’ and not for ‘business to business dispute’. And it has further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that any business related to Commercial purpose does not come within the purview of CP Act, 1986. Ld. Advocate the revisionist S. Dutta in support of her argument mentioned that the revisionist/complainant by doing this business of reselling goods maintains his livelihood with the earning from the said business to maintain his family and he has no other source of income, so, definitely, he should come within the purview of consumer. She further says that Bandhan Bank OP no. 2 has intentionally refused to refund the money which has deposited by the complainant to the account of OP no. 1 which was furnished to the complainant by the Op no. 2 through mail communication. Now, the OP no. 1 mentions that they have furnished the wrong details and for that reason, the transaction could not be completed and the complainant/revisionist is well entitled to get refund of the said money while the Bandhan Bank has denied the same which tantamount to the deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. After considering all aspects of this case, we find that Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the mentioned case on merit while Ld. Forum has decided the case in the very initial stage without giving any opportunity to the complainant by giving sufficient evidence to prove that he used to do his business of purchasing and selling goods as retailer for maintaining his livelihood through self-employment. On the other hand, the Bank has nothing to do but only to refund the money to the complainant after deducting certain charges entitled to. Their denial to refund the same to the complainant/revisionist is an utter negligence on the part of the Bank and definitely, the activities of Bank comes within the purview of deficiency of service. If a bona fide customer of Bank fails to get refund of the amount which he has wrongly deposited then his interest should be protected by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as because it is a part of beneficial legislation. Therefore, considering all the aspects of the case, we find that the Ld. Forum has mis conceived the facts and law involved in the instant consumer dispute and for that reason, the complainant has deprived in getting proper relief from the adjudicating authority established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in our considered view, the revisional application should be allowed otherwise mis carrige of justice cannot be prevented.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the instant revisional application is hereby allowed without any cost. The order of Ld. Consumer Forum Siliguri dated 09/04/2019 in CC/23/2019 is hereby set aside. The instant consumer complaint filed by the consumer Prasenjit Das is hereby admitted on its own merit and the Ops of this case who has received the notice of revision and contested the revision are hereby directed to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri, within 30 days from this day and file W.V thereon, if they want to contest the case. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and let the order be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.