A body corporate cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if their banking services availed were for commercial purposes.

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This statutory appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, NCDRC, dated 13.03.2023, in Consumer Complaint No. 2866 of 2017, whereby the consumer complaint of the inter alia appellant was dismissed, , on the ground that the complainant (i.e., the appellant herein) is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , 1986 Act.

FACTS

2. The appellant, a company incorporated, filed a consumer complaint against Vijaya Bank, Bank (the respondent), inter alia, alleging that it had invested a sum of Rs. 9,00,00,000 (Rs.9 Crores), by way of a fixed deposit, with the Bank, for a period of one year, w.e.f. 28.02.2014, and evidencing the transaction a fixed deposit receipt, FDR dated 03.03.2014 was issued to the appellant and even interest payable on the said FDR was credited in the account of the appellant on 26.03.2014 after deducting TDS, Tax Deducted at Source. However, on 27.06.2014, the appellant received a letter from the Bank about sanction of a loan/credit facility/ overdraft of Rs. 8.10 Crores against the FDR. Suspecting foul play in sanction of loan/ credit facility/ overdraft against the FDR, the appellant lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai on 16.07.2014. A letter was also sent to the Bank to reverse the entries qua the fraudulent overdraft account. The Bank, however, did not accede to the request. As a result, the matter was reported to the Reserve Bank of India, RBI. Subsequently, on 04.03.2017, the Bank informed the appellant that the overdraft facility has been closed by adjusting the amount outstanding thereunder against maturity value of the FDR and the remaining balance i.e., Rs. 50,58,847 was remitted vide DD No. 245983, dated 04.03.2017. The appellant accepted neither adjustment nor remission and requested the Bank to make payment of the entire FDR amount. As the Bank failed to refund the amount, consumer complaint was filed with a prayer that the Bank be directed to pay the principal amount of Rs. 9 Crores along with interest at the rate of 9.75% per annum from 28.02.2014 along with compensation as well as costs.

3. The Bank contested the complaint on merits as well on its maintainability, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) The allegations of fraud/forgery etc. can be decided by either a Civil Court or a Criminal Court and not in summary proceedings under the 1986 Act; and

(b) The complainant company is engaged in commercial activity; the alleged investment was to augment profits, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

4. NCDRC by placing reliance on the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined in Section 2 (1)(d), [ (1)(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 person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval