SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
M/s Ashiana Inn Limited & Anr. —Complainants
versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, IFB, Bank Through its Branch Manager —Opp. Party
Consumer Complaint No. 99 of 2013 with Interim Application No. 2693 of 2013
Decided on 5.7.2013

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants :Mr. Madhurendra Kumar Alongwith Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A person who avails of services for consideration for any commercial purpose shall not be covered under definition of consumer.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(o), 12 and 21—Complaint—Maintainability—A person who avails of services for consideration for any commercial purpose shall not be covered under definition of consumer and as such, such persons would not be entitled to maintain complaint—Loan facility was availed of by complainants to finance their commercial project to construct and run hotel—Services which are claimed to be deficient were availed by complainant for commercial purpose—Complainants are not covered under definition of consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) (ii)—Complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Fora—Complaint rejected. (Paras 3, 6 to 10)

       

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—M/s Ashiana Inn Ltd. through its Managing Director Shri Avtar Singh has preferred this complaint under section 21 r/w section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, ‘the Act’) against M/s Punjab & Sind Bank, IFB Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh claiming deficiency on the part of the opposite party in relation to the release and sanction of the bank loan for the upcoming hotel project of the complainant with the following prayer:

“i. To direct the bank to immediately release Rs. 25.00 crores.

ii. to direct the bank to convert the overdue amount into FITL.

iii. the opposite party to pay damages on account of mental agony etc. Rs.90.00 crores

iv. the opposite party to pay costs of the complaint of Rs.2.00 lac.

v. any other, additional or alternative relief as deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case”.

2. The break-up of the damages of the Rs.90.00 crores claimed by the complainant given in para 50 of the complaint reads thus:

(Amount in Rs.)

Extra Interest liability on Bank

borrowings for a period of last

three years 15.00 crores

Extra interest liability on borrowings

from other sources for a period of

three years 10.00 crores

Loss of income from the Hotel for

the period of last three years i.e.

Rs.10.00 crores each year 30.00 crores

Loss of reputation 30.00 crores

Mental torture and physical discomfort 15.00 crores

Total Rs. 90.00 crores

3. Shri Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant in his written and oral submissions has contended that the respondent bank is engaged in the business of providing service to the general public for consideration. As such, it being the service provider, the bank is amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the definition of ‘service’ as provided in section 2 (1) (O) of the Act. Learned counsel for the complainant has taken us through the definition of “consumer” as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and contended that since the complainant has hired the banking services of the opposite party, he squarely falls within the definition of “consumer”. He contended that amendment of definition of “consumer” which excludes the person who avails service for commercial purpose is not applicable in this case for the reason that although the loan transaction between the complainant and opposite party is a commercial transaction but the services availed are not for commercial purpose. Learned counsel contended that the building of the proposed hotel project is not yet complete or functional, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the building in question would be used for commercial purpose because the user of the building is dependent upon various permissions and licences from the authorities. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon several judgments of the Apex Court and the National Commission particularly in the cases of Karnataka Power Transmission v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.1; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi2; Chandigarh Housing Board v. Avtar Singh & Ors.3; Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta4; Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.5 and also the decision of this Commission in the matter of HUDA v. M/s Suneja & Sons.6

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the complainants and perused the record. The answer to the issue of maintainability of the instant complaint would depend upon the fact whether or not the complainants are covered within the definition of “complainants” given in section 2 (1) (b) of the Act which is reproduced thus:

“complainant” means—

(i) a consumer; or

(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii) the Central Government or any State Government ; or

(iv) one or more consum












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top