DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.92/2009

M/s P. C. Jain Textile Pvt. Ltd.

515, Main Road,

Sadar Bazar,

Delhi-110006                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

Yes Bank Limited

48, Nyaya Marg,

Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi-110021                                                  ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :  31.01.09   Date of Order           :  17.01.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

We have very carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence and the documents filed on behalf of the parties.

The complaint relates to the opening of two current accounts, two LCs for  importing machines from Switzerland as per the terms and conditions contained therein, shortcomings in the LCs,  extension of  LCs time period, release of the amounts of LCs on receipt of right set of documents from Switzerland beneficiary bank, making payment of the amounts by the OP without confirming from the Complainant regarding receipt of full documents from the beneficiary bank, non-forwarding of documents required  and revising of interest from 11.5% to 13% in the meantime. These are the questions which need determination while deciding the complaint as per the averments made in the complaint.

 This Forum is also required to go into the question whether the action taken by the OP in good faith does or does not amount to deficiency in service.

In our considered opinion, all these questions require due deliberation,  minute perusal of the documents of both the parties, the terms and conditions of the LCs and whether the complainant is or is not entitled to the claim of the amount mentioned in the complaint which was earlier filed before the State Commission and was remanded to this Forum for decision.

 None has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, the Counsel for OP has relied on the decision of the National Commission in C.C. No. 248/11 – Victory Electricals Ltd. Vs.  IDBI Bank Ltd., decided on 13.12.11 wherein it is held that in order to decide such questions the answer would depend on the question as to whether the complainant can be said to be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  In that case the complainants had availed the services of the OP Bank for commercial purposes in furtherance of their business etc.  In CG Worldwide Impex Pvt.  Vs. Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 771 relied on behalf of the OP it has been held that the transaction which is commercial in nature is not a ‘Consumer dispute’ and the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.

The present case relates to the year 2007. It is abundantly clear that the LCs in question were got opened by the complainant purely for commercial purposes.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 17.01.2018.