Haryana

StateCommission

RP/29/2015

Federal Bank Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satish Jangra - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No: 29 of 2015

Date of Institution:     07.04.2015

Date of Decision :     22.07.2015

 

1.     Federal Bank Limited, 510-513/8, Harpreet Plaza, Opposite Railway Road, G.T. Road, Panipat.

 

2.     The Federal Bank, Head Office at Federal Towers, Aluva, Erna Kulam-683101, Kerala, India.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Satish Jangra s/o Sh. Rampal, Proprietor, M/s V.K. Tex C/o 1538, HUDA, Sector-12 (Part), Panipat.

 

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Distribuciones Perez SRL, Calle Hermanos Miguel, 182-A, Cuenca, Ecuador, Cable Perez through its Director.

 

                                      Performa Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Nitin Grover, Advocate for petitioners.

Ms.Anju Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated March 4^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panipat, whereby application filed by Opposite Parties, was dismissed.  

2.      Satish Jangra-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’) before the District Forum, Panipat, alleging that he is doing Textile business under the name and style of M/s VK Tex. The complainant was having a current account No.15460200001765 with Federal Bank Limited-Opposite Party No.1-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). The export business of the complainant was through the Bank.  The Bank being implied and expressed Banker as well as authorized agent of the complainant, was authorized for collection of overseas export proceeds and payments against delivery of export documents.

3.      An overseas export order being received from Distribucions Perez SRL Calle Hermanos Migue Equador Cable Perez, Uruguay, the complainant exported some home textile goods to Uruguay based importer, vide invoice No.VK-44 dated December 12^th, 2011 worth US$ 15202.65. The opposite party was to recover the sale proceeds of the above said goods by way of sending documents to consignee bank, US Bancorp Calle General Torres, 150 Cuenca, Ecuador.  The opposite party sent the documents to the consignee bank for collection of the amount but nothing was paid to the complainant. Hence, complaint before the District Forum was filed. 

4.      The opposite parties No.1 and 2 (petitioners) appeared and contested complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties for export business, that is, commercial purpose and therefore could not be termed as ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. It was stated that all bills/documents were sent to the banker of the importer M/s US Bancorp Calle General Torres 150, Cuenca, Equador for collection of the payment and the same were duly received by the overseas Bank, as confirmed by the courier company. Denying any deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      After tendering affidavit, the complainant closed his evidence on September 19^th, 2014. The case was adjourned for evidence of the opposite parties for 17.10.2014.

6.      From 17.10.2014 to 16.12.2014, the opposite parties did not lead any evidence despite having availed five opportunities. On 16.12.2014, an application was filed by the opposite parties for deciding the issue of ‘Jurisdiction’ as well as ‘Consumer’ as preliminary issue. The application was opposed by the complainant by filing reply.

7.      The District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the application.

8.      It is not disputed that the complaint was filed on December 11^th, 2013. The opposite parties appeared on January 22^nd, 2014 and filed reply on August 8^th, 2014, after availing six opportunities. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of complainant. The complainant closed his evidence on September 19^th, 2014 and the case was adjourned for evidence of opposite parties. The opposite parties availed six opportunities but did not lead any evidence. On December 16^th, 2014 instead of leading evidence, the opposite parties moved an application for dismissal of the complaint taking plea that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’.

9.      Besides, the fact that the complainant has specifically pleaded in para No.1 of the complaint that he is doing home textile business for his personal livelihood, the question as to whether the complainant falls within the purview of ‘Consumer’ or not, as defined in the Act, has to be decided after appreciating evidence of the parties. Once the case has reached at final stage, the question as to whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ or not, being a mixed question of law and fact shall have to be decided, while deciding the complaint on merits.  No illegality was committed by the District Forum while dismissing the application.

10.    In view of the above, the revision petition stands dismissed.

11.    Record of the District Forum be returned forthwith.

 

 

Announced 22.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL