Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This is a complaint filed by one Sri Rabindra Nath Metia, Proprietor, Mother India Construction, Purba Medinipur alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant is engaged in the business of construction of road, bridge etc. under contract with Haldia Development Authority. The Complainant opened one Cash Credit account with the OP No. 1 for business purpose. It is alleged that, on 03-06-2013, while he visited the OP No. 1 branch for withdrawing cash, to his utter surprise, he found that a sum of Rs. 8,51,564/- was illegally debited to his account. On enquiry, he learnt that the said amount was withdrawn by using two cheques which he issued for some other purposes. As complaint lodged with the OPs did not yield any positive result, the complaint was filed.
By submitting a WV, the OPs stated that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’. Further case of the OPs is that the Complainant had been deliberately negligent in his conduct as he handed over signed cheques to two unknown persons. According to the OPs since cases of fraud and forgery necessitates police investigation, involving complex questions, which require taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence also and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence is required, the same cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Denying any sort of laches on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Points for consideration
- Whether the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point no. 1:
Admittedly, the Complainant runs a construction business for which he employs labours and the concerned Cash Credit Account was opened purely for business purpose like payment of labour wages. All these admitted positions make no bones of the fact that the Complainant embarked on such venture which was purely commercial in nature by employing staff/labour etc. The element of ‘self employment’ is palpably missing here. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the present case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Insofar as the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’, we are not inclined to discuss these points.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The case stands dismissed on contest against the OPs being not maintainable. Complainant, however, is given liberty to approach the competent Court of Law for the purpose of redressal of his grievance, if he is desirous of doing so. In that case, Complainant may be entitled to the benefit of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of the time spent in pursuing its case under the 1986 Act so far.
