Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present and also files some Xerox copy of document.

Case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.  Perused the petition of complaint and the documents and materials on record.  It appears from the petition of complaint that this Complainant Manaranjan Mallick became owner of the case Rice Mill popularly known as  Mallick Rice Mill, as a legal heirs of his father Madan Mohan Mallick  since deceased.

Thereafter, this Complainant made a loan proposal for M/S. Mallick Rice Mill for overall limit of Rs.264.89 Lakhs on 14-01-2013 to the O.P. Bank; but O.P. Bank declined to grant loan by sending letter stating that the loan proposal of Mallick Rice Mill cannot be considered as per Bank’s lending policy.

So, it appears to us that this Complainant has made proposal for getting loan of Rs.264.89 lakhs to the O.P. Bank for continuation of the case Mallick Rice Mill.  So, it appears to us that this Complainant has made prayer for loan for commercial purpose i.e. for running his rice mill. Let us see whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not as defined in section 2(1)(d) of this Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as defined in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(4) CPR 672 (NC) that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(b) and (d) and section 21(b) – Consumers Complaint – Co-operative Society – Case filed by Mill – Registered Co-operative Society under provision of N.C.S. Act – which consist of 7708 members – Held – “Mill” does not come within the purview of the definition of Complainant or Consumer.

In the present case we also find that there is no averment in petition of complaint that the Rice Mill business is being done by the Complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

It has been observed by the National Commission reported in 2016(4) CPR (200) (NC) inter alia that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer Complaint – Maintainability of – Commercial Purpose – Truck in question was purchased for a commercial purpose – There is no averment in complaint that Truck was sought to be used by Complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment – In absence of such averment, Complainant cannot seek to include his case within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act - Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed.

In the present case this Complainant has made proposal for getting loan for his Rice Mill i.e. for commercial purpose.  There is no averment in the petition of complaint that the said Rice Mill sought to be used by Complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of his self-employment.

In view of above observation of the Hon’ble National Commission and above facts & circumstances we hold that this Complainant cannot be termed as a Consumer as envisaged under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Act and this Complainant also does not come within the purview of explanation of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we hold that this complaint is not liable to be admitted as same is not maintainable.

Hence, it is

                                                                          Ordered

That Complaint Case No.47 of 2017 be and same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable ; but without cost.

Dismissal of this Complaint will not come in the way of Complainant approaching to a proper Forum other than Consumer Forum for redressal his grievances.

Let a copy of this Order be given to the parties free of cost.