Shri Partha Kumar Basu, Member

The case record is put up to-day for order.

The case was taken up for admission hearing on 10.10.2023 when the Ld. Advocate of the complainant advanced arguments.

Gist of the complaint case as averred by the complainant in her petition is that the complainant came to know about her ineligibility of get a fresh loan due to poor rating by CIBIL pending existence of two loans of Rs. 80000/- and Rs.50000/- already. The complainant went to OP bank but of no avail. The complainant in her petition affirmed that no loan whatsoever was taken by her ever from the OP bank. The consumer complaint was filed praying for a direction on the OP bank to provide details of the above mentioned two loans and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith a litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant filed 21 exhibits alongwith complaint petition comprising of page 1 to 31 under firisti in support of her claims.

In a consumer complaint filed under C.P Act 2019, whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ needs to be determined at it’s first place. For deciding this we would refer to very wide definition of word ‘consumer’ u/s 7(i) and 7(ii) which are as under:-

“Sec. 7(i):

  ‘consumer’ means any person who : -

buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid pr promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment made 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”

(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 service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly 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 service for any commercial purpose”  

During hearing it got unfolded that it is the admitted position of the complainant that she has not taken any loan from the OP bank. Neither she is an account holder or buyer of any financial product of the OP Bank. There is also not a single scrap of document which was exhibited depicting that the complainant is a customer or a consumer of OP bank. Rather the complainant has categorically denied having either any relationship or having taken any loan from the OP bank.

In the case in hand it is the first and foremost duty of the complainant to satisfy the commission at the very outset that he/she is a consumer and purchased goods or hired and availed of services from the seller or service provider. Moreover, the person who has hired or availed of service for any commercial purpose can not be termed as a consumer.

Having regard to the aforementioned observation, we therefore, hold that the present Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 7(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Hence, it is ordered that :-

the case be and the same is dismissed as not being admitted with a liberty to the complainant to proceed before appropriate court of law. The complainant will be free to file a fresh complaint, if any, which will not be affected or hit by the Limitation Act in computing the period of limitation, by excluding the span during which this consumer case was under adjudication.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.