IMPORTANT POINT
When a demand has been raised by petitioner against respondent, merely by submitting bank guarantee petitioner cannot be directed to issue NOC.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Bench (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in M.P. No. 32 of 2014 in CC/11/2014 – M/s. Limenaph Chemicals Pvt. Vs. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank by which, interim application was allowed and OP/petitioner was directed to hand over no dues certificate in respect of complainant’s account and return all title deeds mortgaged with the petitioner subject to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.28 lakhs in favour of Assistant Registrar, State Commission.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent filed complaint before State Commission and alleged that complainant availed cash credit facility for resolving their financial difficulties from OP/petitioner. Entire outstanding amount in cash credit account has been settled inspite of that OP is neither issuing no dues certificate nor returning original documents on the ground that complainant has to pay Rs.28 lakhs as penal charges. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

3. Complainant also filed application under Section 13 (b) for grant of interim relief regarding issuance of NOC and return of original title deeds.

4. OP did not appear even after service of notice and he was proceeded ex-parte. Learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed application as directed above against which this revision petition has been filed.

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. He further submitted that inspite of the fact that Rs. 28 lakhs were outstanding in the complaint, learned State Commission committed error in allowing application and directing to issue NOC and return of original title deeds without hearing petitioner; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as no amount against cash credit facility was outstanding against the respondent and he is ready to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.28 lakhs; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer whereas learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (2007) 4 SCC 579 in which it was observed that even services hired for consideration for commercial purpose are not excluded from purview of Consumer Protection Act. He has also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Kaveri Telecom Ltd. Vs. Vijaya Bank & Anr., IV (2014) CPJ 302 (NC) in which it was held that in the light of Three Judges Bench Kisore Lal (supra) judgment complainant falls within purview of consumer. At this stage I need not to decide this controversy finally because this objection is to be decided by learned State Commission at the time of deciding complaint finally but, prima facie, complainant falls within the purview of consumer as inspite of depositing entire outstanding amount, documents have not been released.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs.28 lakhs are outstanding in the petitioner. When this Commission asked for break up of Rs.28 lakhs, learned Counsel for the petitioner apprised that this amount is outstanding on account of default clauses of the agreement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no amount is due against cash credit facility as whole of the outstanding amount has been released by another bank from which complainant has taken cash credit limit of Rs.14.25 crores instead of Rs.7 crores granted by petitioner.

9. As demand of Rs.28 lakhs has