Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present revision petition praying for setting aside of order dated 19.2.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad  (for short, ‘State Commission’).

2.        Brief facts are that Respondent No.4/Opposite Party No.4 had borrowed loan from Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 for business purposes. Since, respondent no.4 could not repay the loan amount, as such he was  declared as debtor of respondent no.1. Thereafter, one time settlement   was arrived at between respondent no.1 and respondent no.4. As per one time settlement scheme it was decided to settle the matter at Rs.2.40 crores. Petitioner was interested to purchase the property of respondent no.4 which was under mortgage.  Respondents no.1 to 3 informed the petitioner to deposit Rs.12.00 lacs (Rupees twelve lac only) in  sundry account. It is the case of the petitioner that he was also informed that the property in question would be sold to him if one time settlement scheme is materialized and if not, then he would be refunded the amount of Rs.12.00 lacs. Accordingly, Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.12.00 lacs with respondent No.1, on 23.11.2006 by way of cheque. Thereafter, negotiation for one time settlement failed between respondent no.1 and respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 informed respondent no.1 to refund the amount as deposited by the petitioner, but the same was not refunded by respondent no.1. Thereafter, petitioner also wrote a letter to respondent no.1 seeking refund of the amount. Since, respondents no.1 to 3 have not refunded the petitioner’s amount, as such they have committed unfair and unreasonable tactics and have shown gross negligence in their services. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.12.00 lacs  plus 18% compound interest alongwith Rs.2.00 lacs for causing harassment to him.

3.        The  consumer complaint was contested by respondents no.1 to 3.  It is stated that  respondents never approached or requested the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.12.00 lacs. Even otherwise, there is no “Banker-Customer Relationship” between the petitioner and the respondents. Hence,  the consumer complaint is not maintainable.

4.        On merits case of respondents is, that the one time settlement (OTS) proposal was finally approved on mutually acceptable terms and at the request of the borrower namely respondent  no.4, the amount of Rs.15.00 lacs inclusive of the alleged sum of Rs.12.00 lacs lying in the sundry account of the Bank was adjusted on 27/03/2007 towards the part payment of the OTS amount. Subsequently, remaining amount as per the approval of OTS has been paid by the borrower  and account has since been closed on 29/9/2008. The borrower  submitted an application dated 28/3/2007 bringing out the sundry deposit amount of Rs.15.00 lacs as the amount deposited by him in the sundry account towards settlement of OTS proposal. Therefore, irrespective of source of deposit, the fact is that the said amount of Rs.15.00 lacs kept as sundry deposit, was towards adjustment in the event of the OTS proposal getting approved and upon its approval, the said amount under instructions of the respondent no.4 has been suitably appropriated.

5.        District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ahmedabad (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 19.12.2009, allowed the complaint and passed following directions;

          “The opponent no.1 to 3 shall pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.12 lacs (Rs. Twelve Lacs only) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24/11/2006 till realization, preferably, within eight weeks from date of this order.

           The opponents no.1 to 3 shall pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.1200/- (Rs. One thousand two hundred only) towards the cost of this complaint.”

6.        Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum.

7.        Now, petitioner has filed this revision petition.

8.        Notice of revision petition was issued to all the respondents. Respondents no.1 to 3 had initially put in their appearance but on 30.10.2014 at the time of final arguments, they did not appear and as such were proceeded ex parte.

9.        Respondent no.4 was duly served by publication, but has chosen not to appear before this Commission. Therefore, respondent no.4 was also proceeded ex parte.

10.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

11.      Petitioner in its entire complaint has nowhere pleaded as to how he falls within the definition of consumer as envisaged under the Act. The transaction which has taken place between the petitioner and the respondents, is purely a commercial transaction. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a consumer dispute.

12.  State Commission, in this regard  in its impugned order observed;

“7.   Considering submissions of both parties and also considering the judgment of learned Forum, it reveals that Dilipbhai Nagjibai Thakkar, Proprietor of Dinha Export had availed facility of loan and when he failed to repay the loan amount his account was converted into Non-performing account. This account was to be settled as One Time Settlement subject to payment of Rs.2.40 crore. Out of the said amount Rs.12 lacs was deposited by Rashmikant C Patel in this account.

        There is no evidence on record to show that respondent Rashmikant C Patel had deposited Rs.12 lacs to purchase assets of Dinha Export. Also there is no evidence on record to show that assets of Dinha Export were offered for sale. Therefore there is no substance in the argument of the respondent that he deposited Rs.12 lacs to purchase assets of Dinha Export. The receipt produced on record by the parties’ shows that Rs.12 lacs have been paid towards One Time Settlement and necessary endorsement to that effect has been made therein. Therefore the amount of Rs.12 lacs paid by Rashmikant C Patel seems to have paid for Dinha Export towards One Time Settlement.

          8.    Since the respondent had deposited Rs.12 lacs towards One Time Settlement into bank, relationship between respondent Rashmikant C Patel and appellant bank is not established like Consumer and Trader. Moreover, when appellant bank had accepted Rs.12 lacs towards One Time Settlement and therefore it cannot be said that non refund of the said amounts to deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank.”

 13.     We are in full agreement with the reasonings given by the State Commission, that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the petitioner and respondents no.1 to 3. The entire transaction executed between the parties, is purely commercial in nature.

14.      Therefore,  the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference nor it suffer from any  infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

15.      Accordingly, present petition stand dismissed with no order as to cost.