JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER Complainant M/s Edit II Productions is a partnership concern engaged in production of TV serials. Initially M/s Edit II Productions was a proprietorship concern of Binaifer S Kohli and she had opened a cash credit account with the opposite party bank. On 3.10.2006, the proprietorship business was taken over by the partnership comprising of two partners, namely, Mrs. Binaifer S Kohli and Sanjay R Kohli. The opposite party bank was apprised of change in constitution of the complainant firm and all the accounts and business of the proprietorship concern was transferred to the partnership firm. Since the inception, the complainant firm has been maintaining cash credit account with the opposite party bank. It is the case of the complainant that during the period w.e.f. April 2005 till 21.11.2008 one Shoeb Mohammed Taj Mohammed Shaikh, accountant of the complainant firm managed to get hold of blank unsigned cheque books of the complainant firm and he unauthorizedly withdrew a sum of Rs.2,37,64,090/- by presenting forged cheques. When the complainant came to know about unauthorised withdrawals from the account of the firm, they approached the bank for reimbursement but in vain. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant filed consumer complaint No. 168 of 2009. It is pertinent to note that in para 21 of the said complaint, the complainant reserved its right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for recovery of amount wrongfully withdrawn against the opposite party bank as also the accountant and other benami property holders who had acquired the property from the proceeds of the above noted forgery. Subsequent to filing of said consumer complaint, a civil suit for recovery was filed in Bombay High Court which is still pending. 2. The opposite party contested the said complaint on merits. The allegations on merits need not be reproduced. Besides, the opposite party raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint particularly in view of the fact that complainant has also filed Civil suit for recovery in Bombay High Court on the same cause of action. It is also pleaded by the opposite party that the complaint involves detailed trial in view of the allegations made and complex issues which requires detailed evidence for determination. Therefore, the matter should be decided by the Civil Court. Apart from the above noted preliminary objections, there was another issue which need determination i.e. whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). 3. Arguments on maintainability of consumer complaint were heard and vide a reasoned order dated 10.04.2015, the consumer complaint was dismissed on the ground that complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and as such complainant has not locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Liberty, however, was granted to the complainant to pursue his legal remedy in the Civil Court. 4. The complainant being aggrieved of the dismissal of his complaint challenged the aforesaid order in the Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated September 7, 2015 dismissed the Civil Appeal with following observations: “Delay Condoned. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. However, it has been prayed by Mr. C A Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant before us that his client will apply for liberty before the National Commission seeking leave to proceed in the matter dropping the suit in question. In view of the prayer made, such a liberty is granted and the Commission will decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of law including the concept of ‘consumer’ . On the strength of the said order, the complainant has filed instant consumer complaint no. 1473 of 2015.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant on the issue whether the complainant is a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant has taken us through the definition of term “consumer” as also “service” as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) and 2 (1) ( o) of the Act. It is contended that on reading of section 2 (1) (o), it is clear that banking and financing services are covered under the definition of service provided in the Act. It is further argued that as the complainant had hired / availed of services of the opposite party bank, the complainant is squarely covered under the definition of ‘consumer’. It is further contended that Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corpn. (2007) 4 SCC 579 has categorically held that the definition of ‘consumer’ in the Act is wide enough and it encompasses within its fold not only goods but also the services bought or hired for consideration. Learned counsel has contended that since complainant had availed / hired services of the opposite party bank, complainant is squarely covered under the definition of ‘consumer”. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B N Raman (2006) 5 SCC 727. “The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for formation of National Commission; State Commission and District Forum. These are remedial agencies. Their functions are quasi judicial. The purpose of these agencies is to decide consumer disputes. Activities relating to non-sovereign powers of statutory bodies are within the purview of the Act. The functions of such statutory bodies come under the term 'service' under section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Banking is a commercial function. 'Banking' means acceptance, for the purposes of lending or investment of deposit of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise [See: section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949]. The intention of the 1986 Act is to protect consumers of such services rendered by the banks. Banks provide or render service/facility to its customers or even non-customers. They render facilities/services such as remittances, accepting deposits, providing for lockers, facility for discounting of cheques, collection of cheques, issue of bank drafts etc. In Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India [AIR 2000 SC 2181] this court has held that banking is business transaction between bank and customers. Such customers are consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.” 7. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the complainant, it would be useful to have a look on the definition of “consumer” as provided under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act as amended upto date. The definition reads as under: (d) "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (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 purposes; 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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer is a person who buys any good and hires or avails of any service for consideration either paid or deferred. The Section, however has an inbuilt exception that the person who buys goods or hires of avail of service for commercial purpose is not a consumer. Admittedly, the complainant availed of cash credit facility against the account opened in the bank in relation to its production business. Thus, it is clear that services of the bank were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose, that is in respect of his business. That being the case, the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. 9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kishore Lal ( supra) is of no avail to the complainant because it is based upon its own distinct facts. The complainant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Chandra Grover Vs. Bank of India in Civil Appeal No. 15701 of 1996 decided on 26.04.2000 as also the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank ( supra) in which Vimal Chandra judgment has been discussed. The said two judgments of the Supreme Court pertains to the dispute pertaining the period prior to April 2003. It may be noted that in the original definition of consumer as given in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, so far as the cases pertaining to deficiency in service are concerned, there was no exception between hiring or availing of service by a person for commercial purpose or non commercial purpose. However, the exclusion pertaining to hiring or availing of services for commercial purpose in the definition of ‘consumer’ was incorporated by amendment effective w.e.f. 15.03.2003. Since the judgments relied upon by the complainant pertains to the pre amended period, in our view, those are of no avail to the complainant. 10. In view of the discussion above, complainant is not a consumer. That being the case, complainant has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. The consumer complaint is, therefore, dismissed. | 
