Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/320/2016

Ganpati Convent School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Harvinder Aneja

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

Ganpati Convent School vs. PNB

CC No. 320 of 2016.

 

Present: Sh. Harvinder Aneja, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

           

                        Today the case was fixed for consideration on the point of admission. Heard. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the complaint and documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that as the complainant firm M/s Ganpati Convent School through its Chairman obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- ( one crore fifty lacs) vide loan account No. 194500NF00000023 for running business of school from the respondent bank. Meaning thereby that complainant firm hires or avails the services of the Op Bank for commercial purpose and definition defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act are produced as under:

(II) [ hires or avails of] any services 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 purposes 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 purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”

                        We have gone through the contents of the complaint carefully but not a single iota of word has been mentioned in the complaint that complainant firm was availed the loan amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for his livelihood. However, the above noted explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood So, the case of the complainant also does not fall under the explaination clause mentioned in section 2(1)(d)(ii). Even in the complaint, complainant firm has alleged that OP Bank has charged higher rate of interest i.e. 15.75% instead of 14% from the complainant firm and referred the case law titled as Allahabad Bank Versus Vansh Sales Corporation, First Appeal No. 1194 of 2014 decided on 31.07.2015 is not tenable as the complainant had already closed his account and paid the entire amount to the OPs and the same view has been held in case law titled as Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bank of India, 1995(1) CPJ page 1 National Commission Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 21- Complaint alleging charging of excess interest on credits- Date back to 1983-84- Prior to April, 1990- Barred by limitation- Scrutiny of 700 entries involved- Cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in time bound proceedings under the Act. Further the same view has also been taken in case titled as  Birbhan Goyal Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. 2011(4) CLT page No.611 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 2(1)(g), 15 and 26- Frivolous complaint- Costs- Banking service- Bank loan- Interest- Floating rate- EMI- Increase in term of EMI- The complainant very well knew that as per the agreement/documents, the rate of interest, on the loan which was taken by him was floating and the EMIs and the period of loan could be varied by the OP from time to time- He also knew that the demand raised by the OP was not illegal and arbitrary and yet he filed a false and frivolous complaint- The District Forum was right in imposing Rs. 10,000/- as costs, under section 26 of the CP Act on the complainant- Order of the District Forum upheld and appeal liable to be dismissed.

                        In the circumstances noted above and going through the section (2)(1)(d)(ii) as well as law cited above, we are of the considered view that since the services of the OP Bank have been availed by the complainant for business/ commercial purposes, its complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limini. However,the complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law/authority, if so advised  The Assistant is directed to return the original documents, if any, complainant after photo copies of the same on the file. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 27.09.2016.

                                                (S.C.SHARMA)                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                 MEMBER                                PRESIDENT