BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.57 of 2018 Date of Instt. 08.02.2018 Date of Decision: 26.10.2021
M/s Bombay Traders Mandi Kukar Pind Jalandhar VPO Sofi Pind Through its Partner:-
1. Davinder Singh, resident of v.P.O. Sofi Pind, District Jalandhar, Partner, M/s Bombay Traders,
2. Hardev Singh Partner M/s Bombay Traders V.P.O - SOFI PIND JALANDHAR.
….... Complainant
Versus
1. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. Manager, State Bank of India
2. The Branch (Erstwhile State Bank of Patiala), Hardyal Road, Jalandhar Cantt.
Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. H. D. Sampla, Adv. Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Order Jyotsna (Member)
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that the complainant is running business of Commission Agent of Market Committee, Kukar Pind, Jalandhar Cantt. having licence No. 723 Jalandhar Cantt, under the name and style of M/s Bombay Traders and is having a Current Account with the opposite party No.2 bearing Account No. 65137741815 since 1996. That the opposite party No. 2 has issued a Commission Agent/Aartia Card (Rupay Card) to the complainant and the complainant has been utilizing and doing transactions through the said card in lacs of rupees before the merger of State Bank of Patiala with State Bank of India. That after the merger of State Bank of Patiala with State Bank of India the complainant again used this Aartia Card (Rupay Card) on 03.10.2017 during the Paddy Season. When the concerned Inspector of Markfed tried to swipe this card through his machine to give credit to the account of Bombay Traders, this card did not work and payment was declined showing the reasons Invalid Card. That the complainant visited the opposite No. 2 and told that Aartia Card (Rupay Card) of the complainant is not working, whereas the complainant has to make payments to farmers very urgently, but the opposite party No.2 did not try to solve the problems of the complainant upto 05.10.2017. Complainant also met the opposite party No. 1 twice but nothing has been done into the matter. That on 06.10.2017 the complainant has given his written request for updating his Aartia Card/Rupay Card to the opposite party No.2. asked the complainant to come on 11.10.2017 as Wednesday is the only day when the opposite party No. 2 can apply for a fresh Aartia Card/Rupay Card. That farmers who have sold their paddy/rice crops through the complainant are demanding their payments from the complainant and the complainant tried to contact the opposite parties on toll free number 1800 11 22 11 on 07.10.2017 at about 3.30 P.M and on 08.10.2017 at about 9.00 A.M. through Customer Service Centre of State Bank of India for the solution of the complaint and officials concerned asked the complainant to approach the opposite party 2. That the farmers (customers of the complainant) are demanding their payments daily from the complainant and this caused a great embarrassment, harassment, mental torture and financial loss to the complainant due to the fault and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is unable to make payment to his customers/farmers and they are spreading rumors in the market with regard to the financial status of the complainant and this has also lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of customers/farmers, associates, friends and relatives. That due to the illegal act and conduct on the part of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of more than Rs.5 Lacs for which the complainant is legally entitled to recover the same from the opposite parties. That the complainant got served legal notice through his counsel on 09.10.2017 to the opposite parties. The notice vas duly served upon the opposite parties and even after the receipt of the notice the opposite parties have failed to give reply of the notice to the complainant. That the complainant has suffered mental harassment, financial loss in business and agony due to the negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be allowed and OP be directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that this Forum (now Commission) does not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate present complaint. The Complainant is not "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is running the business of Commission Agent at Kukar Pind, Jalandhar and for his business got issued Commission Agent/Artiya Card (Rupay Card) for utilizing and doing business transactions which is commercial activity and the complaint relates to use of said card. The complainant is not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act as such this Commission does not have jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint and it deserves to be dismissed out rightly. That complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. He has presented a distorted and twisted version of facts and has deliberately withheld true vital facts. The complainant with malafide intentions concocted a false story and attributed absolutely false allegations against Opposite Parties. The complainant with malafide intentions made vague allegations, he has neither mentioned name of Inspector alleged to have swiped impugned card for giving credit in account of M/s Bombay Traders on 03.10.2017 nor Machine in which the swiped Card. All the allegations made by the complainant are after thought and a cooked up and false story to misuse the process of law with a malafide intentions. That the present complaint is not maintainable in as much as there is no negligence nor any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. That present complaint is gross misuse of process of law by the complainant. On merits, all the allegations as made by the complainant in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents as Ex.CA-1 to Ex.CA-7 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OPs No.1 & 2 and documents Ex.OP 1&2/1 and Ex.OP 1&2/2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined written arguments filed by OPs No.1 and 2 and have also gone through the record very carefully.
6. The complainant is a partnership firm, running the business of commission agent of Market Committee under the name and style of M/s Bombay Traders and is having a current account with OP No.2. The complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of deficiency in service since the Aartia Card (Rupay Card) issued by OP No.2 to complainant, did not work on 03.10.2017 and payment was declined showing the reason, invalid card and this has caused great embarrassment, harassment, mental torture and financial loss to the complainant.
7. On the other hand, the OPs have submitted that complainant is partnership firm and is running the business of commission agent and for its business got issued Aartia Card (Rupay Card) for utilized and doing business transaction which is a commercial activity and therefore complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. To support their arguments OP has quoted the following judgments of Hon’ble National Commission which are as under:- (a) M/s Edit 11 Productions Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 5
(B) Union Bank of India Vs. Ramayan Yadav and Others 11 (2015) CPJ 585 NC
8. In view of the fact, the complainant is a partnership firm engaged in business/commercial activity and also that complainant has opened a current account with OP No.2. It can safely be concluded that the complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer” as provided under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence consumer complaint is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score ground and we refrain ourselves from recording any finding on the merit of the case. Consequently the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. Parties will bear their own costs.
9. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
26th of October 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
