KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
CC NO. 06/12
JUDGMENT DATED:28.02.2013
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
Josco Fashion Jewellers,
R/by its General Manager,
Rajeev Gandhi Municipal- : COMPLAINANT
Shopping Complex, Kottayam.
(By Adv: Sri. A.Abdul Kharim)
Vs.
1. State Bank of Travancore,
R/ by its Managing Director,
Head Quarters, Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 012.
2. Asst. General Manager,
SBT, Kottayam Main Branch, : OPPOSITE PARTIES
Kottayam – 686 001.
3. Chief Manager,
C & I, SBT, Kottayam,
Kottayam – 686 001.
(By Adv: Sri.Kollenmcode D.S. Jayachandran)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant, M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers represented by its General Manager, Kottayam under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties ie the State Bank of India, Kottayam Branch for refund of Rs.25,03,992/- being the penal interest collected by the bank for closing the cash credit facility and corporate loan availed of by the complainant. The opposite parties, the bank mainly disputed the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that complainant is a commercial organization and that the loan is availed of by them for commercial purpose and that therefore complainant cannot be considered as a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
2. Therefore a preliminary point is raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint and both the counsels were heard.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Act reads thus:-
(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;]
3. It is clear from the above that section 2(i)(d)(ii) specifically excludes a person who avails of any service for any commercial purpose.
4. In the present case, the complainant is admittedly a commercial establishment dealing in gold ornaments and the cash credit facility and loan are availed for commercial purpose. That being so, complainant cannot be termed as a consumer as defined under Sec.2(i)(d) of the Act. Consequently the complaint is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.
Therefore we find that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
VL.
