The court clarified that transactions without a profit motive do not meet the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the complainant, Mr. Arun Agrawal, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate, for opposite party-2.

2. Nirmal Agarwal has filed above complaint for directing Bank of Baroda to pay (i) Rs.15386807/- i.e. his balance surplus amount; (ii) Rs.8104698/-, i.e. less amount remitted to Cargill; (iii) Rs.6782399/-, i.e. excess amount remitted to the beneficiary; (iv) Rs.53102528/-, i.e. less interest paid as per contractual obligation; (v) Rs.4279581/-, i.e. the amount deducted from the interest payable on the term deposits; (vi) Rs.638151134/-, i.e. debited on account of cancellation of foreign currency forward contract; (vii) Rs.3212292/-, i.e. loss suffered on account of cancellation of foreign currency forward contract; (viii) Rs.11336887/-, i.e. the commission charged on the letters of guarantee, cancelled unilaterally; (ix) Interest on these amounts @18% per annum from 21.03.2007 till the date of payment; (x) Rs.10000000/-, as compensation for business loss; (xi) litigation costs; and (xii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case. During arguments, the counsel for the complainant informed that after filing the complainant, the bank had paid Rs.3212292/-, i.e. loss suffered on account of cancellation of ‘foreign currency forward contract’ and Rs.11336887/-, i.e. the commission charged on the letters of guarantee.

3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerge from documents, are as follows:-

(a) M/s. Ipog International Limited was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in export of general merchandize and agricultural products. M/s. Cargill International Trading Pte, Singapore, a subsidiary company of Cargill Inc. USA (the buyer) entered into a contract with M/s. Ipog International Limited (the complainant), vide Contract No.CGTIPL/0506/VAR019 dated 28.03.2006, for export of “any agricultural products and any other goods as the buyer and seller agree in writing”. Prepayment amount was Japanese Yen (JPY) 1402920000/- subject to issue of “Stand by Letter of Credit” by a bank acceptable to the buyer. The buyer agreed to remit the amount within seven days of receiving “Stand by Letter of Credit”.

(b) The complainant approached Bank of Baroda, Branch at: 111, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West) Mumbai (the bank) for grant of export related fund base and non-fund base facilities to perform above contract and had meeting with senior officers on 23.03.2006. The bank sanctioned the facility on 25.03.2006 on the conditions that (i) guarantee will be operational after receipt of advance payment; (ii) the amount received from the buyer in advance be kept in the bank as FDR; (iii) Exchange risk for foreign currency to be borne by the complainant; (iv) Processing charges, documentation charges, advocate fee, legal charges and charges levied by advising bank to be borne by the complainant; and (v) furnishing security & documents i.e. (a) Counter Indemnity; (b) FDR equivalent to guarantee value; (c) Personal guarantee of the directors; and (d) Undertaking. By way of prime security, home loan of Rs.2439000/- in the name of Rahul Chokhani (the director) and of Rs.2323000/- in the name of Suman Agarwal (the director) were taken.

(c) The complainant opened Current Account with the bank for ‘packing credit limit’ of Rs.one crore and ‘non-fund based limit’ of Rs.50/- lacs, on 22.03.2006. Thereafter, the bank issued “Stand by Letter of Credit” to the buyer, time to time. In pursuance thereof the buyer used to remit the amount to the bank and the bank used to