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, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Punjab National Bank & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
M/s. Sant Ram Harbans Lal —Respondent
Revision Petition No.673 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 23/09/2013 in Appeal No. 129/2010 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 7.4.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Arti Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint cannot be maintained in respect to current account.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2 (1) (d)—Banking—Current account—Deficiency in service—Respondent partnership firm had hired services of petitioner for a commercial purpose i.e. in relation to their business account opened in bank—Respondent being a partnership firm, cannot claim to avail of benefit of explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act—Respondent is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such he is not entitled to raise a consumer dispute before Consumer Fora—Impugned orders set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 9 to 11)

       Result: Revision Petition allowed.

       

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dated 23rd September, 2013 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the complainant, set aside the order of the District Forum, Muktsar and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay to the respondent/complainant sum of Rs.3 Lakhs besides litigation expense Rs.15,000/-.

2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant M/s Sant Ram Harbans Lal, through its partner Harchand Kumar, filed a consumer complaint alleging that the aforesaid firm was having its current account No. 0239002100027213 with the main branch, Kaccha Ferozepur Road, Muktsar of the opposite party bank. According to the complainant the opposite party bank on 18.12.2006 made a payment of Rs.3 Lakhs against cheque No.031226 without due diligence despite of the fact that signatures of Harchand Kumar partner of the firm were forged. The complainant, on coming to know about the said unauthorised withdrawal, lodged an FIR No.70 dated 18.4.2007 with police station City Muktsar. The complainant approached the opposite party seeking refund of the money but to no avail. The complainant being aggrieved raised a consumer dispute. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement. A preliminary objection was taken that the complainant had availed of services of the bank for commercial purpose and, therefore, is not a consumer. It was also pleaded that FIR No.70 dated 18.4.2007 in police station City Muktsar is still under investigation and, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature.

3. Learned District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, did not find merit in the plea of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid by the complainant to the petitioner opposite party.

4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ complainant preferred an appeal and the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum holding that opposite party has committed deficiency in service by making payment against a forged cheque and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days of the date of the order. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that respondent complainant is not a consumer as envisaged u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because admittedly the services of the opposite party were hired for commercial purpose i.e. the current account of the respondent complainant opened in respect of the business of partnership firm. It is further contended that even on merits, the State Commission has faulted in appreciation of facts.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order.

7. We have considered the rival contentions . First and foremost the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Fora below have acted without jurisdiction ignoring the fact that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

8. The term “Consumer” has been defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under: -

(d) “consumer” means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such per










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