A commercial entity does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, thus complaints by such entities regarding service deficiencies are not maintainable.

1. Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar Agarwal, the proprietor, in person, for the complainant and Mr. Vakul Sharma, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. PPS International has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to pay (i) Rs.11300000 along with interest @18% per annum from the date of loss till the date of actual payment, (ii) Rs.2 crores, as compensation for loss of business, mental agony and harassment, and (iii) to cost of litigation.

3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it are as follows:
(a) Pavan Kumar Agarwal (sole proprietor of the complainant) did Engineering (Mechanical) from Aligarh Muslim University, in 1988 and MBA from IMT Ghaziabad in 1993. After working for 15 years in different Engineering Industry, mainly dealing with Indian Railways, Pavan Kumar Agarwal set up an agency and trading business from 1.8.2003 and established three companies, namely (i) PPS International, (ii) SIM International and (iii) PT Communication System Pvt. Ltd. (a Joint Venture with a Belgium Company). The complainant was engaged in dealing with foreign companies to sell and to provide after sale service in India for their very high tech electrical and electronic products used in Railways. He mainly deals Indian Railways or the big companies associated with Railways and manufacturing their product for Railways application, like BHEL, Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens etc. The complainant brought and introduced the new technology products in Indian Railways. He mainly deals with at Railway Board level as introduction of new technology is policy decision and used to be taken by Railway Board.
(b) Total turnover of the complainant was nearly Rs.100 crore in terms of both sales in Indian currency as well as obtaining orders directly in the name of their Principals in foreign currency. The complainant was a regular Income Tax payee since two decades. In financial year 2007-08, the complainant paid Rs.2.32 crores as Income tax. In subsequent financial year he had deposited Rs.3.85 crores as advance Income tax. For full financial year 2008-09, his Income tax liability would be approximately Rs.4.5 crores.
(c) Punjab National Bank was a nationalized bank and operates its banking business throughout in India. It provides various banking services to its customers, including operation of Bank Account through Internet Banking. The opposite party claimed that it enjoyed strong fundamentals, large franchise value and good brand image and fully committed to its guiding principles of sound and prudent banking and had computerized functioning. They were using Information Technology for the implementation of Core Banking Solution, in 3503 service outlets at around centre, which facilitates anytime anywhere banking. The opposite party widely claimed that about 37 million satisfied customers over its 4589 branches were using Internet Banking and had leadership position in this field among the nationalized banks in India.
(d) Being fully assured by the officers of the opposite party about safety, the complainant opened Current Account vide Account No.2726002100046578, in PNB Branch at Sector - 27, Noida, for managing funds generated from the business of the complainant. The complainant used to deposit its hard earned money in this account under full belief that his money would be safe. The complainant used this Current Account for paying government taxes, while for other daily business activities, the complainant was using its other Current Accounts with HDFC and HSBC banks. The complainants used to get payment from Railways in several crores and most of the time, these amounts were first deposited in