Bihar

StateCommission

CC/50/2016

Praveen Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Nirlmal Kumar

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BIHAR, PATNA
FINAL ORDER
 
Complaint Case No. CC/50/2016
 
1. Praveen Kumar Singh
Praveen Kumar Singh, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Kharmanchak, PS- Adampur (Kotwali), Dist- Bhagalpur
Bhagalpur
Bihar
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors
The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Patna
Patna
Bihar
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Shailesh Kumar Sinha PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Upendra Jha MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Renu Sinha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 02 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

O R D E R

02.01.2017

S.K.SINHA, PRESIDENT

 

                   Complainant claims a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Forty Lacs) being the loss sustained   on account of not giving No dues certificate even after repayment of the outstanding loan amount  of Rs.9,50,000/- as settled in National Lok Adalat on 14.02.2015 in the civil court campus Bhagalpur. The Opposite party did not return the original documents deposited in security of loan for its use in the business. On account of above in action on the part of the bank the complainant could not start two big projects namely the Corrugated Kraft Paper Boxes  and Arwa Rice Mill Project approved by BIADA as such the loss of Rs. 40,00000/- (Forty lakh) was sustained by the complainant.

                   Admittedly the alleged two projects did not commence as such  the claim of loss could not be validly ascertained.  In the other words  the claim  orf loss of Rs. 40,00,000/-  (Forty lakh) is unascertained   claim since turn over the project depends on various factors. Notwithstanding the above admittedly the business purpose under the project is a commercial venture for profit and that too not by means of self employment exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood. It would be appearing on perusal of the projects the same is involving more than fifty persons as such complainant cannot be held as consumer within the provision of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

                   For the reasons and discussion above the complainant being not a consumer the complaint is not is not maintainable as such it is not admitted and dismissed at the admission stage.

           

                     ( Upendra Jha )                                         ( S.K. Sinha )

                       Member (M).                                               President.

 

Agam

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Shailesh Kumar Sinha]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Upendra Jha]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renu Sinha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.