HON’BLE MEMBER : SMT. JYOTI IYER

Today the above referred Complaint came up for Admission before us. We heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant at length on the query raised by us that prima facie the Complainant Firm appears to have hired the services of the Opposite Party Bank for Business i.e Commercial Purpose. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the amendment in section 2 1(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f 15.3.2003 any person buying goods for resale from the manufacturer etc and/or any services hired by any person for Commercial purposes from any service provider is excluded from the ambit of the definition of “CONSUMER”. In the instant case in hand on perusal of the Complaint & other record, it is clearly reflected from the cause title & averments made in the Complaint in Para Nos. 1, that the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant Partnership Firm being which is running business as engineering workshop at the above mentioned address in the cause title since 1981 & in the year 1985 the said Complainant Firm had approached the Opposite Party Bank for sanction of loan as against creation of Equitable Mortgage i.e. by depositing Title deeds of land & building in MIDC area by the Complainant firm with the Opposite Party Bank.

... 2 ... (Complaint No. 467/2010)

It is further the Contention of the Complainant firm that despite issuance of no dues certificate dtd.8/1/2004 the Opposite Party Bank has failed to return the original title deeds deposited by the Complainant Firm with them hence the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service etc. It is also further reflected from para Nos. 6, 7 &13 (ii) & (iii) i.e prayer clause. The relevant portions of the above referred paras are reproduced hereunder:-

1) The Complainant further states that due to not retuning the original title deeds the complainant could not obtain loan form other financial institutions & therefore suffered huge loss in his business.

2) The Complainant further states that due to not returning the original documents he can neither take the loans from other financial institutions nor mortgage the said property. He being businessman he had no other property income, hence this amount is very precious for him as it will help him to enhance his business.

13(ii) And this Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to pay loss of business of Rs.15,000/- per month from July 2010 to till date i.e Rs 90,000/-& interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum.

(iii) This Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to pay Compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to the Complainant who is a businessman for causing harassment, mental agony, torture, business loss, advocates legal charges etc.

In view of the above discussion we have no hesitation in concluding that the above said Complainant Firm had obtained the loan from the Opposite Party Bank for enhancing its business therefore it can be said that the Complainant firm hired the services of the Opposite Party Bank for Commercial Purposes hence in view of the aforementioned amendment w.e.f. 15/3/2003 any ‘Consumer’ who availed the services for commercial purposes would not fall within the ambit of the definition of a Consumer u/s.2(1)(d) of

... 3 ... (Complaint No. 467/2010)

the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence the present complaint filed by the Complainant firm is not maintainable before this Forum. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has relied and produced the Citation which is as follows:-

III(2005) CPJ 9 (SC)

SUPERME COURT OF INDIA

Pokhran Investments(p) Ltd. … Appellant.

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd., and ors. … Respondents.

We are of the well considered view that the above citation is not applicable to the query raised by this Forum rather it deals with the jurisdiction issue. However we make it clear that the Complainant is at a liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court and that the present proceedings shall not come in the way of the Complainant firm for the purpose of limitation. Hence the following order:-

ORDER

i) Complaint No.467/2010 is dismissed.

ii) No order as to costs.

iii) Copy of this order be sent to the party free of costs.

THANE

DATE : 12/01/2011