Delhi

StateCommission

CC/240/2014

HPM CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYNDICATE BANK & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :30.10.2017

Date of Decision :06.11.2017

COMPLAINT CASE NO.240/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

HPM Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.,

209-210, Anupam Bhawan

Commercial Complex, Aazadpur,

Delhi-110033.

 

Through its Company Secretary

Shri Akhil Kansal                                                                                        ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Syndicate Bank,

Central Market, Punjabi  Bagh,

New Delhi-11110026.

Through its Manager                                                                    ….Respondent no.1

 

2. Syndicate Bank

No-6, Bhagwan Das Road,

New Delhi-110001.

Through its Deputy Central Managing (Credit)                      ….Respondent no.2

 

3. Syndicate Bank,

IInd Cross, Gandhi Nagar,

Bangalore-560009 Karnataka

Through its Chairman cum Managing  Director                    ….Respondent no.3

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

Present:        Shri Benu Gunjan Jha, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Shri Anand Sharma, Counsel for the respondents.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

Short question for adjudication in this complaint is whether the complainant is entitled for refund of extra payment having been charged,  and, if so whether this Commission can issue any direction when the complainant is not a consumer since  the complainant has apparently obtained the services for commercial purpose.

Facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the complaint, are these.

HPM Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., for short complainants had preferred this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Syndicate Bank, hereinafter referred to as the OP praying for the relief as under:-

(i)      Direct the respondents jointly or severally to return  back the entire excessive amount  i.e. Rs.21,06,750/- (Rupees twenty one lakh six thousand seven hundred fifty only) along with interest @18% p.a.; and

(ii)     reimbursement an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) being the compensation for the mental agony, harassment and sufferings caused to the complainant; and

(iii)    grant the cost of proceedings and litigation expenses to the complainant and against the respondent; and/ or

(iv)    grant such further or other relief(s) which this Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.

          The complainant company maintained a Cash Credit bank account  with the OP no.1 since 2003 and enjoyed the credit limits to the extent of Rs.70 crore both fund  based and non fund based for the purpose of regulating  their business operations and on this  account they had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed.

This facility was obtained in the year 2011 for a period of two years commencing from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2013. For this purpose the OP no.1 had charged a sum of Rs.26,47,200/- as processing fees from the account  of the complainant company for a period of one year from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012. On the request of the complainant company in the year 2012, the credit limit was enhanced since their business had grown up substantially by then and they required the additional credit facilities. The request was accepted and the credit facility was enhanced from existing Rs.70 crore to Rs.127 crores, for a period of one year from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013 and accordingly a sum of Rs.28,09,000/- was charged as processing fees. The processing fees so charged was therefore raised to the tune of Rs.47,80,198/-. However the complainant found this processing charged more than legitimately due and accordingly a letter was sent to the OP to refund the processing fees so charged which according to him was, more than due. According to the complainant an amount of Rs.21,06,750/- was over charged. On scrutiny  and examining the matter the OP feeling convinced that they have over charged the processing fee , returned an amount  of Rs.15,22,500/-. This according to the complainant was not correct as they were entitled for more refund.

Since the OP had charged from the complainant the processing fees  more than due, they decided to switch their  entire business operations from the their bank to the State Bank of India under intimation to them. This led to the cause of action in the matter and as a consequence thereof the OP debited from the complainant account an amount of Rs.15,22,500/- without intimation or with proper and due notice. The complainant approached the respondents for the redressal of their grievances regarding  withdrawal of the amount without notice to them but the OP did not respond. Their request in this behalf was followed by a legal notice issued on 19.03.2014 calling upon the OP to return the excess amount charged from them with interest @18%  which notice was duly served on them. The respondent  did not show any response to the notice either.

The complainant have alleged that this act on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly have preferred a complaint before this Commission.

The respondents were put to notice and in response thereto they have filed their written version disputing and denying the allegation contained in the complaint. The OP have also filed an application under  Order VII Rule (11)  read with Section 151 CPC praying for disposal of the complaint on the ground  that the complainants are not consumer.

The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 30.10.2017 when the counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

In the first instance we refer to the provisions contained under Section 2(1)(d)  defining the consumer. According to the said definition Consumer means any persons who-

(i)      buy any goods for a consideration which ahs 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 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 purpose);

          (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;).

We note that the credit facility was obtained by the complainant for the purpose of the business.  Anything connected with or related to the business has a tendency of being for a commercial  purpose unless contrary  is established.  If that is the case the complainants by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a consumer and if the complainants are not a consumer then  they are not entitled to raise a consumer dispute under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986. The fact that the complainant availing credit facility of the bank or a financial institution is not a consumer, since action is for commercial purpose, has already been ruled by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Sushil Gulati – I(2015) CPJ 326(NC) – holding

“Bank transactions are for commercial purpose. Cash credit facility was obtained by complainant for running his business. Complainant nowhere mentioned that he was carrying on business by means of self employment for earning  livelihood. Complainant is not a consumer”.

 

For all these reasons and discussions done, we are of the considered view that the application filed by the respondents for the rejection of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer, having availed the credit facility for business purpose has to be allowed and we order accordingly. Having allowed this application on the ground set out above the complaint stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear the cost.     Let a copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required.

File be consigned to Record Room.

                  

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)