We have heard learned counsel the appellant.

2.      The appellant’s case has been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa.

3.      The appellant filed consumer complaint no. 116/2008.  The complaint was filed on the allegation that the appellant is a businessman and amongst other businesses, he is dealing in oil, high-speed diesel and other petroleum products.  He had entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 1 for dealership of retail outlet of petrol and diesel.  The business was financed by Respondent No. 2.  They had entered into a tripartite agreement.  The business was operated about a couple of years and thereafter the dealership was terminated by Respondent No. 1.  The Respondent No. 2 had granted loan, which was obtained for the purpose of running the business but the Respondent No. 2 discontinued the overdraft facility when the dealership stood terminated and subsequently Respondent No. 2 – State Bank of India started proceedings before the Debts recovery Tribunal, Cuttack under provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short “Securitization Act).  The appellant alleged that he suffered loss of Rs. 9.5 lakhs due to deficiency in the services of Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2.  He, therefore, filed the complaint.

4.      The State Commission came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 2 – SBI agreed to finance for operation of the retail outlet to the tune of Rs.1.19 crores in the terms of loan and cash credit facility.  That agreement stipulated a condition to the effect that the party shall act in accordance with the mutual obligations and therefore, if the Respondent No. 1 would terminate the contract then it would cause termination of the tripartite agreement too.  The State Commission held that the appellant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the complaint was dismissed.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously agreed that the complainant is a consumer in view of the explanation given in Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986 after the amendment, which was carried out in 2003.  He would submit that but for the deficiency in the service of the respondents, the appellant would not have suffered huge financial loss.  He contended that the appellant started the outlet to earn his livelihood and as such, is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of CP Act.

6.      At the outset, it may be stated that the averment in the complaint is to the effect that the complainant is “a businessman and carries on many other businesses including dealership in petrol, diesel and other petroleum products.  Obviously, the appellant is not operating only the outlet as his exclusive business but it is one amongst his other unlisted businesses and therefore, it is difficult to say that he started the outlet only in order to earn his livelihood.

7.      What appears from the record is that after filing of the complaint, the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack came to the notice of the State Commission.  The State Commission duly considered the amendment and in view of “Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Prasad Sinha”, 2009 AIR SCW 5649, rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant availed services of the respondents for his “Commercial purposes” and as such cannot be termed as consumer.  The observations of the State Commission would show that the appellant has also started arbitration proceedings.  It is also explicitly clear that vexed and complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the matter.  It needs to be examined whether jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is unavailable in view of Section 34 of Securitization Act.  It also needs to be examined whether the jurisdiction is unavailable in view of provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  The remedy before the Consumer Fora is a summary remedy for the purpose of speedy disposal of the complaint cases.   It is well settled that complex and vexed issues of civil nature are not to be decided by the Consumer Fora and the parties should be left to take up such issues before the other forums available.

8.      In this view of the matter, the view taken by the State Commission appears to be legal, proper and correct.  No interference is called for.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.  No costs.