Order No. 3
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Record is put up today for passing order in respect of admissibility of the present complaint case.
Case of the Complainant, in a short compass, is that, he availed of a car loan of Rs. 1,72,000/- from the OP on 08-07-2008, which was repayable in 12 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 15,182/-. It is claimed that the said loan amount was duly repaid and the loan account was closed on 14-10-2009. However, thanks to the deliberate and mala fide act of the OP, his name was not removed from the list of defaulters being prepared and maintained by the Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL). It is further stated that the Complainant is the Director of another company under the name & style, “Borgang Tea Co.”. In the year 2014, the Complainant came to know that the name of said company also featured in the list of defaulters of CIBIL resulting which, UCO Bank refused to renew the agriculture loan that was accorded to the aforesaid company earlier. It is alleged that although he took up the matter with the OP, it did not take any proper step to rectify the error. Against this backdrop, the Complainant filed this case.
The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant can be construed as ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or not.
Before we deal with the issue, let us first see who is considered as a bona fide ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act.
"consumer" means any person who—
(i) 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 or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment 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; or
(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 services 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 services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
A plain reading of the aforesaid definition makes no bones of the fact that ‘commercial purpose’ has largely been kept out of the bound of this Act with the solitary exception that, where a person hires/avails of services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, he can be treated as a ‘consumer’.
In this instant case, it appears from the photocopy of letter on record dated 05-07-2008 that the Complainant is associated with ‘Hind Electromech Pvt. Ltd.’ as its Director. On the other hand, admittedly, the Complainant is associated with another company, namely, ‘Borgang Tea Co.’ as its Director. It is a clear pointer of the fact that the Complainant is associated with different companies as their Directors.
Seemingly, therefore, the very essence of ‘earning livelihood’ and ‘self-employment’ is missing in the present case. In fact, it appears, by filing this case, the Complainant has claimed compensation from the OP on account of business loss of Rs. 46,98,000/- suffered by him, thanks to the alleged arbitrary act of the latter.
In such a backdrop, we afraid, the Complainant cannot be treated as a bona fide ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act and consequent thereof, the present complaint case cannot be entertained by us.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That CC/513/2016 be and the same is dismissed being not maintainable in its present form and prayer.
