Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member
PRIMUS CHEMICALS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
IFCI LIMITED - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1305 of 2016 (Against Order dated 3.9.2016 in CC No. 7 of 2016 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Decided on : 20-01-2017
Mr. Sanjeev K. Rawat, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
Availing services for making profit falls under commercial purpose, and the period of limitation can be extended in exceptional circumstances.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer - 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 14(1)(d) - Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Parveen Dari Industries, Laxmi Engineering Works v. R.S.G. Industrial Institute, Poonam Chambers 'B' Commercial v. Navin Keswani, Managing Director, Auplex India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. Veljan Hydrair Limited - The court discussed the definition of 'consumer' and the commercial purpose, emphasizing that availing services for making profit falls under commercial purpose. The court also considered the question of limitation and the circumstances under which the period of limitation can be extended.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant company availed a loan from the O.Ps. for establishing an industry. After settling the dispute and repaying the loan, the O.Ps. failed to return the mortgage and pledge deeds and all documents relating to the complainant Company. The State Commission dismissed the complaint at the admission stage, stating that the complainant was not a 'consumer' and the complaint was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant availed services for a commercial purpose, and therefore, was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action started from the settlement date and the complaint was filed after the limitation period.
Issues: The issues involved the definition of 'consumer' and the commercial purpose, as well as the question of limitation and the circumstances under which the period of limitation can be extended.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that availing services for making profit falls under commercial purpose, and returning of documents in the present case is not an independent service but part of the commercial activity. The court also found that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed after the limitation period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the State Commission's order, and the complainant was granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of the grievance.
ORDER
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant, seeking to challenge the order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint Case No. 7/2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Company approached O.Ps. for a loan of Rs. 400 lakh. The same was sanctioned on 7.7.1994. Accordingly, certain necessary documents pertaining to the complainant Company for mortgage and hypothecation were handed over to the O.Ps. by the complainant. However, O.P. No. 4 disbursed only a portion of the sanctioned loan. In the year 1999, the O.Ps. revoked the sanction granted and demanded the refund of the partly disbursed loan amount. Consequently, DRT proceedings were initiated against the complainant. The complainant filed cases against the O.Ps., for the irregularities in the execution proceedings. During the pendency of the cases, the complainant and the O.Ps. entered into an agreement for settlement of all dues on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, the complainant settled the dispute with the O.Ps. and payment of settlement amount Was made on the fixed date 31.3.2010 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the settlement. However, despite the full and final receipt of the settlement amount, the O.Ps. failed to return the mortgage and pledge deeds and all documents relating to the complainant Company despite repeated requests from the Complainant. Consequently, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 12.1.2015 yet the O.Ps. failed to return the relevant documents of the complainant till date.
3. Aggrieved by the act of the O.Ps., the complainant approached the State Commission and filed a consumer complaint No. 7/2016. The State Commission vide order dated 3.9.2016 dismissed the complainant at the admission stage as follows:
"5. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable firstly for complainant not being a 'consumer' and secondly it being barred by the period of limitation. It is accordingly dismissed".
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the Complainant has knocked the doors of this Commission by way of the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has decided the case finally at the admission stage and has held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' and the complaint was barred by limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was stated that the loan taken from financial institution has already been re-paid as per the settlement entered between both the parties on 31.3.2010 and now the question before this Forum was in respect of the deficiency on the part of the OPs since the documents which were deposited under mortgage or hypothecation have not been returned by the O.Ps. This deficiency has nothing to do with the commercial purpose. The learned Counsel referred to the case of Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Parveen Dari Industries, 2002 NCJ 2729 (NC), to support his contention that nondelivery of documents after the repayment of loan is a clear deficiency. It has been held that;
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(g)-Deficiency in service-Banking-Release of documents to be negotiated only upon receiving payment by the bank without receiving such payment-Plea of loss of document by postal authorities not tenable-Is deficiency in service.
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)(d)-Complaint-Banking-Release of documents to be negotiated only upon receiving payment by the bank without receiving such payment-Amount required to be received Rs. 27,690, costs Rs. 1,000 and compensation Rs. 3,000 allowed."
7. The learned Counsel further emphasized that the State Commission has held only on presumption that the complainant was not a 'consum
