Order No. 3

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The complainant being a proprietor of Radhakrishna Bhandar states that he is carrying his business for his and his family livelihood. The business is only the source of income of his family. He is entirely dependent on his business in accommodating the needs of his family. He further states that in the year 2019 he opened a Cash Credit (CC) Account being Account No.064684600000480, Customer ID – 5531164, with the opposite party no.1 Yes Bank Limited, Burabazar Branch, Kolkata. The opposite party no.1 granted cash credit facility limit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) only vide Cash Credit (CC) Account being Account No.064684600000480, Customer ID – 5531164 through its sanction letter dated 04.08.2022. In the month of May, 2023 the opposite party dishonoured cheque bearing No.598882 for sum of Rs.32,700/- (Rupees thirty two thousand seven hundred) only, cheque bearing No.598883 for sum of Rs.17,460/- (Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred sixty) only and cheque bearing No.135048 for sum of Rs.78,300/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand three hundred) only on the plea insufficient money in the aforementioned account of the complainant to honour the cheques. According to the complainant there was sufficient money in the account to honour all three cheques in spite of the same the opposite party dishonoured it.

The complainant submitted photocopy of Income Tax Return for assessment year 2022-23 which reveals the yearly turnover of Radhakrishna Bhandar is Rs.5,38,12,112/- (Rupees five crore thirty eight lakh twelve thousand one hundred twelve) only and Income Tax Return for assessment year 2022-23 reveals turnover of the business 1,90,73,166/- (Rupees one crore ninety lakh seventy three thousand one hundred sixty six) only.

Admittedly, the Cash Credit (CC) Account No.064684600000480, Customer ID – 5531164 is a business account which is being used by the complainant for his business transaction for incurring profit. The amount of turnover of business of the complainant indicates the magnitude of his business. Moreover, nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned that the business under name and style ‘Radhakrishna Bhandar’ is being runned on self employment by the complainant Swapan Kumar Saha. 

Having considered the discussion made above and considering the magnitude of the business we are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.