This appeal is directed against the order no. 2 dated 11/4/2019 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in reference to CC no. 25/5/2019. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the complainant /appellant is a partnership farm, having business of steal by which the partners earn their livelihood and to run the business smoothly, they availed the Cash Credit Facilities from the Union Bank of India that is the respondent up to rupees three crore and after satisfactory dealing on the part of the complainant/appellant farm, the bank has exceeded the Cash Credit Facilities up to rupees 4 crore. The complainant used to maintain the Cash Credit Facilities loan account in a smooth manner and furnished the stock  statements in due time. But surprisingly the complainant farm found that the bank Authority has illegally and malafidely charged interest from the loan account of the complainant farm to the tune of rupees 4,16,722 which was strenuously protested on the part of the complainant farm and approached the bank authority  to refund the said amount to their Cash Credit loan account. But in spite of repeated approach, the bank authority did not make any refund of the said amount rather they paid no heed to the request of the complainant farm. The complainant farm, thereafter sent legal notice to the bank and in spite of receiving such notice, bank did not discharge their official duties and for the deficiencies of service and latches on the part of the bank, the consumer complainant has approached before the Ld. Forum to get refund of rupees 4,16,722 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. including compensation Rs. 1 lakh for sufferance of mental pain and agony, rupees 75,000 for punitive damage and Rs. 25,000 as litigation cost. The said complaint was registered and it was placed for admission hearing on 11/4/2019. The Ld. Forum  after hearing the complainant detected that the Cash Credit Facilities extended in favour of the complainant was to the tune of rupees 4 crore and for that reason, the said amount exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum and the partnership Farm who has raised consumer complaint was not the consumers under the provision of section 2(d), of CP act, 1986 and for that reason, the consumer complaint was not admitted. Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the relief here claimed was refund of rupees 4,16,722 and some amount as compensation which were less the outer pecuniary limit of the Ld. consumer Forum and Ld. Consumer Forum had authority to entertain such consumer complaint as there was deficiency of service on the part of the bank. But the Ld. Forum has failed to understand the actual position of law and illegally dismissed the consumer complaint at admission stage. The appeal was registered in due time and the notice upon the Bank as respondents was duly served. The respondent banks has contested the appeal through their legal representative.

Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that the consumer complainant city steal industries is the Partnership Farm which deals with business of steal materials and the partners of the said farm are doing the business to maintain their livelihood and it is contended on the part of the appellant that this is the self-employment of the partners and beside this business these partners have no other source of income for their livelihood. It is also admitted that they availed the Cash Credit loan Facilities from the Union Bank of India, Siliguri Brach and such Cash Credit Facilities was subsequently exceeded up to rupees 4 crores. Thereafter the bank has all on a sudden debited rupees 4,16,722 from the Cash Credit Facilities loan account as penal interest which was challenged by the consumer complainant in their consumer complaint and they have preferred the provisions of Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 for getting compensation adequately for the deficiency of service on the part of the bank. During the course of argument, Ld. Advocate of the respondent bank submits that the subject matter of the case relates to Rs. 4 crores whereas the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri had the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate any consumer complaint, the value of which should not exceed 20 lakhs. So, the Ld. Forum has rightly observed that the consumer complaint was not admissible. He further submits that it was the partnership Farm and the Ld. Forum has clearly observed that the said partnership Farm were doing the business for commercial purpose. Partners of the said partnership farm are not consumers as defined in Section 2(d) of CP Act, 1986. Ld. Advocate of the appellant countered this argument to the score that provision of Sub-section 1 of section 11 of Cp Act, 1986, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum clearly mentioned that subject to other provision  of this  Act, District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation if any claim does not exceed rupees 20 lakhs. After hearing both sides, it is established beyond any doubt that the Cash Credit Facilities was extended up to rupees 4 crore but the consumer dispute relates to only rupees 4,16,722 as the complainant has prayed for refund of the same money deducted by the Bank as penal interest from the Cash Credit loan account of the complainant. Here  the compensation amount is much less than the upper limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum. In this case consumer complainant categorically mentioned that the partners of the said Farm were doing the business for the self-employment to maintain their livelihood. So without recording evidences and without considering all aspects in the initial stage. Ld. Forum had no opportunity to determine that the appellants were not the consumers under the provisions of  Section 2(d) of the consumer protection Act. So, the commission thinks that the consumer complainant should get ample opportunity to raise their case before Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum should have the opportunity to adjudicate the dispute after obtaining all evidences and after a full course of hearing. But the rejection of consumer complaint in an initial stage is not appreciable in the arena of judicial process. Rather the consumer protection Act, is based on the theory of justice equity and good conscience and a bona fide consumer when approaches the consumer, dispute adjudicate authority for getting reliefs under the protection of equitable rights, then full opportunity should be given to such consumers, so that the grievances should be shorted out in a rightful manner.

Therefore, the decision of the Ld. Forum appears to be immature, illegal, and unauthorised in the eye of law. Thus, the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the appeal be and same is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The impugned order under appeal dated 11/04/2019 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in CC case no. 25/S/2019 is hereby set aside. The consumer complaint filed by the appellant is hereby admitted. The respondent banks are directed to file W.V if any, before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri within 45 days from the date of receiving this copy of order in respect of consumer complaint no. 25/S/2019. The respondents are at liberty to collect the notice of the consumer complaint from the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in the meantime.

Let the matter be communicated to Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri and also to be supplied to the parties free of cost.