STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  COMPLAINT NO. 420 OF 2016

M/s. A K Enterprises

Plot No.38, Palia Masoodpur

Deva Road, Barabanki

Through Proprietor Abhishek Kumar Sharma

Present Address : 631/173, Gyan Vihar

Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow

                                                                                              ...Complainant

                                                           Vs.

UCO Bank

1/8 Vishwas Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

Through Branch Manager

                                                                                           ...Opposite Party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Complainant                  :    Sri Ram Kumar Verma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party               :   

Dated :  25-07-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT(ORAL)

Sri Ram Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the complainant appeared.

Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and perused complaint.

Present complaint has been filed under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by M/s. A K Enterprises against UCO Bank for redressal of grievance arising out of term loan Account No. 16540610005200 and C.C. Account No.1654051000595 of complainant firm being operated in the bank of opposite party. The complaint has been filed by firm M/s. A K Enterprises and the both loan accounts were sanctioned by the opposite party to the complainant firm for commercial purpose. As such the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

It is relevant to mention that complaint has been amended and para 4 Aa has been added in complaint with averment that the proprietor of the firm has established the firm for his livelihood and self employment and has taken

:2:

loan from the bank for this purpose.

The complainant has filed statement of accounts as annexure-1 of complaint. It shows that the loan has been sanctioned in the name of M/s. A K Enterprises and not in the name of proprietor.

In view of above after having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as annexures of complaint it is apparent that both accounts of complainant were being run by the firm M/s. A K Enterprises for commercial purpose. As such the case of complainant is not covered with explanation added to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of M/s. Pressweld Engineers V/s Sri Jayaram Reddy and another reported in 2015(1) CPR 222 (NC).

I have perused the judgment respectfully. In view of facts mentioned above this judgment is not helpful to the complainant.

In view of discussion made above I am of the view that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As such complaint is dismissed.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

           Pnt.