ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A,CHANDIGARH Misc. Application No.1130 of 2024 In/and First Appeal No.514 of 2024 Date of institution : 26.08.2024 Date of Decision : 12.12.2024 Rama Overseas, Sadarwala Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib through its sole proprietor Aseem Bansal s/o Sh. Raj Bansal R/o Mour Road, Near Railway crossing, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

….Appellant/complainant Versus Indian Bank Sadar Bazar, Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Branch Manager.

……Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib in Consumer Complaint No.194 of 2021.

Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER MISC.APPLICATION No.1130 of 2024 This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, this application is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN APPEAL The present Appeal No.514 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant, challenging the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No.194/2024, whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed on one of the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant’s firm availed the services of the OP-Bank for commercial purposes. In the grounds of appeal, it has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint without considering the settled law, averments and evidence placed on record by the appellant/complainant.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record placed on the file.

3. The foremost point for consideration before me is to determine whether the services availed by the appellant/complainant from the respondent/OP falls within the term for ‘commercial purpose’ or not? For appreciating the rival submissions, a perusal of the relevant Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is necessary, which is reproduced as under:-

“Section 2(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration, which has been paid or or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system or 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 service 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 service 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 of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause:-

(a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-

employment.”

4. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that appellant/complainant was having five accounts with the respondent/OP i.e. Term Loan-1 account, Term Loan-2 account, cash credit limit account, FITL account and WCTL account. It is also not in dispute that the complainant’s firm is a sole proprietor firm and running its business of Cashew Processing Unit and al