Delhi

North

CC/271/2023

RAKESH VIJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROTIUM FINANCE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- 1 (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe-II Building,Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054

Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 271/2023

 

In the matter of

Rakesh Vij

(Prop. Of Vij Sons Electricals)

Vijsons Electricals

11, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar

Delhi- 110006                                               …       Complainant

Versus

Protium Finance Limited

Through its Director

Vikrant Tower, 11th Floor

Rajendra Place

New Delhi                                                     …       Opposite Party

 

ORDER

19-12-2023

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant, who is admittedly proprietor of M/s Vij Sons Electricals, has alleged that the M/s Protium Finance Limited (OP) has been deficient in providing service by charging higher processing fee and other charges against the promise made by the officials of the said OP. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant in person on last date of hearing before reserving the order on admissibility of the complaint.

2. We have perused the records and the heard the arguments of Complainant in detail. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Complainant, through its proprietorship firm has applied for a loan against property from OP. He also alleges that one of the officials of the OP has promised that the Complainant, for the loan of Rs. 25,00,00,000/-, the Complainant would be charged only 1% processing fee and the OP shall not charge any other charges. It is the case of the Complainant that the OP charged processing fee @ 1.5% and have also deducted other charges. The Complainant accordingly alleges that the OP has charged a sum of Rs. 94,321/- extra and by way of this complaint, he, inter alia, prays for refund of the said amount.

3. The Complainant has not filed document with respect to loan including loan offer letter, loan sanction letter or even loan agreement signed between the parties. There is also no document on record that would suggest that the official of the OP has made any such promise as alleged. Hence, prima facie, the Complainant is not able to establish his allegations against the OP. On this ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Further, the loan payment schedule and emails filed by the Complainant suggest that the OP has sanctioned “Emerging Enterprises Loan Against Property (EELAP)” to M/s VIj Electricals. The Complainant being the proprietor of the said firm has signed and accepted the loan on behalf of the proprietor firm. The nomenclature of the loan suggests that the said loan is designed for setting up/ developing Micro, Small Medium Enterprises (MSME). The nature of such loan is commercial in nature, which is out of preview of scrutiny by the Consumer Commissions under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. In this context, we would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the term “Commercial Purpose”. While examining the issue, Hon’ble Suprme Court, in Laxmi Engineering case (Supra) has held as under:

“10. … Any consumer can go and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the complainant himself; any recognized consumers' association can espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and State Governments can act on his/ their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for “business ­to­ consumer” disputes and not for “business­to­business” disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal.

11. … The explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self­employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood.”

6. In Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs Unique Shanti Developers and others [(2020) 2 SCC 265], Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of transaction for commercial purpose, has laid down certain guidelines and held as under:

“19. To summarise from the above discussion, though a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is “for a commercial purpose”:

19.1. The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/ industrial activity or business­to­business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2. The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit­generating activity.

19.3. The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

19.4. If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of “generating livelihood by means of self­employment” need not be looked into.”

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lilavati Trust case (supra) has guided that to decide that a transaction is for a commercial purpose or not, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be considered and there cannot be any straightjacket formula for that purpose. However, the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and close and direct nexus with a profit generating activity are two broad parameters to ascertain that whether the transaction in question is commercial in nature or not. Further, for application of the explanation of section 2 (1) (d) of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1989 [Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], it is also to be examined that if the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and the consumption of the purchaser and/ or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, then the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of “generating livelihood by means of self- employment” need not be looked into.

8. While applying the principles laid down in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank [(2022) 5 SCC 42] has examined the overdraft facility being utilised by a stockbroker has held that relations between the appellant [Stockbroker] and the respondent [Bank] is purely “business to business” relationship. Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore concluded that as such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of ‘commercial purpose’ and it cannot be said that the services were availed “exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood” “by means of self-employment”. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined that if the interpretation as sought to be placed by the appellant is to be accepted, then the ‘business to business’ disputes would also have to be construed as consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.

9. In the case in hand, the loan is clearly for development of MSME and the relationship between the Complainant and the OP is purely business-to-business.  Hence, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint being commercial in nature.

10. Accordingly, this complainant is dismissed on two grounds. First that there is commercial nature of the transaction between the Complainant, which is and OP and also for the reason that the documents filed by the Complainant does not prima facie establish any deficiency of service on part of OP. Complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.