JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

1.      The complainant which is a partnership firm, and is running a poultry farm, was sanctioned loans worth Rs.9.98 crore under different heads.  The case of the complainant is that the loan accounts ought to have been renewed after one year but that was not done.  The respondent debited a sum of Rs.1611921/- in the account of the complainant towards recovery of short interest.  The case of the complainant is that the respondent had recovered excess interest from it for the period from 18.09.2013 to 20.06.2014 without intimating the hike in the interest rate to the complainant.  The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent which took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      On merits also the respondent disputed the case set out by the complainant.

4.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint and having held that the complainant was entitled to recover excess interest paid to the bank for the above-referred period, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 11.03.2020 the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the consumer complaint.

5.      In terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a person is not a ‘consumer’ if he purchases goods or hires services or avails services for a commercial purpose, unless he can prove that the goods were purchased or the services were hired, as the case may be, for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment.

6.      In the present case, the complainant is a partnership firm and not an individual.  More importantly there is no averment in the consumer complaint that the partners of the complainant were earning their livelihood by way of self-employment in the business for which the loan was taken by the complainant firm from the bank.  Even otherwise, the very fact that the complainant firm took a huge loan of more than Rs.9,00,00,000/- clearly shows that the complainant is carrying on business at a large-scale.  A business at such a large-scale cannot be carried out by the partners of a firm themselves or even with the help of one or two employees.  Such a large business, particularly when it is a business of running a poultry firm, requires employment of a large number of workers.  Therefore, it would be difficult to even suggest that the complainant had hired or availed services of the respondent for the purpose of its partners earning their livelihood by way of self-employment.  The question involved in this petition recently came up for consideration of a three-Member Bench of this Commission in RP No. 2833 of 2018 Tosoh India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar & 3 Ors. dated 06.01.2020 and relying upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject the Larger Bench of this Commission inter-alia held as under:-

“6. In Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Greaves Cotton & Company Ltd. I (1991) CPJ, 499

(NC) , which was a decision rendered before the amendment of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed tha