NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 95 OF 2006
1. M/S. ANAND NISHIKAWA COMPANY LIMITED
"ANBROS HOUSE", 25/31, EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI -110 008.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS.
THROUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, #THE MALL,
PATIALA,
PUNJAB
2. STATE BANK OF PATIALA,
THROUGH IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH AT
DEHAR, LALRU,
PATIALA
PUNJAB
3. R.K. THAPA,
S/O. SHRI. BIRBAL THAPAR, R/O. 64, LAL DWARA
COLONY, NEAR LAL DWARA MANDIR,
YAMUNA NAGAR,
HARYANA
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 210 OF 2006
1. M/S. ANAND NISHIKAWA COMPANY LIMITED
ANBROS HOUSE", 25/31, EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110 008.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
THORUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE #7, BHIKAJI CAMA
PLACE,
NEW DELHI
2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
THROUGH IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH AT
LALRU, LALRU MANDI,
PATIALA
...........Opp.Party(s)

PUNJAB
3. R.K. THAPAR,
S/O. SHRI. BIRBAL THAPAR, R/O. 64, LAL DWARA
COLONY, NEAR LAL DWARA MANDIR,
YAMUNA NAGAR
HARYANA
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : In C.C. No. 95/2006
For Complainant : Mr. Maheen Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1&2 : Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate
Ms. Aparna Iyer, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Khanna, Law Officer
Mr. Vijay Ramola, Law Officer
For Opposite Party No.3 : NEMO
For the Opp.Party : In C.C. No. 210/2006
For Complainant : Mr. Maheen Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1&2 : Mr. Ajay Shanker, Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 3
: NEMO

Dated : 12 Sep 2014

ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.
The complainant company had a current account each with State Bank of India, opposite
party in Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2006 and Punjab National Bank, opposite party in
Consumer Complaint No.210 of 2006. As per the Resolution dated 05-06-2004 passed by the
Board of Directors of the complainant company the aforesaid accounts could be operated singly
without any limit by Mr. Rattan Singh Anand, Mr. Iq
bal Singh Anand and Mr. Ashok
Kumar; the Chairman, the Managing Director and the Sr. Vice President respectively of the
company (hereinafter referred to as group-A). The account upto a limit of Rs.3,00,000/- could
be operated by any two amongst
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Anand, Mr. Gautam Sen, Mr.
P.K. Goel and
Mr. Rakesh Thapar; the Manager (Quality), Manager (Plant),
Manager (Commercial) and Authorised Signatory respectively (hereinafter referred to as groupB) of the complainant company. Vide subsequent Resolution dated
09-08-2004, Mr. Gautam

Singh was replaced by Mr. A.K. Sharma. It was further stipulated in the said Resolution that
any two from group-A i.e. Mr. Rattan Singh Anand, Mr. Iqbal Singh Anand and Mr. Ashok
Kumar or group-B i.e.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Anand, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. P.K. Goel
and
Mr. Rakesh Thapar could operate the accounts without any limit in respect of
any government payment like excise, sales tax, income tax, provident fund and other
government payments.
2.
Vide Resolution dated 09-08-2004, instead of two from group-A or from group-B, any
two from either group could operate the account without any limit in respect of any government
payments. Vide Resolution dated 16-08-2005 the name of Mr. P.K. Goel was removed and the
name of Mr. Jayant P. Mehta was added to group-B.
3.
The grievance of the complainant company is that pursuant to connivance of an officer of
the company namely opposite party No.3Mr. Rakesh Thapar and certain officers of the
banks, the banks allowed operation of the aforesaid accounts beyond the limit of Rs.3,00,000/-,
by the persons named in group-B. This is also the case of the complainant that the aforesaid
transactions did not pertain to government dues like excise, sales tax, income tax, provident
fund, etc..
4.
The complainant company claims to have suffered loss to the extent of Rs.1,94,56,398/on account of the transactions allowed by the State Bank of India and Rs.1,67,61,255/- on
account of the transactions allowed by the Punjab National Bank. The complainant is, therefore,
seeking the following amounts from the opposite parties:
In Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2006
i.

Actual monetary losses suffered by

Rs.1,94,56,398.00

the complainant (principal)

ii.

Interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal amount

Rs.67,91,911.53

iii.

Figurative Losses

iv.

Losses to the reputation & image of the company

5.

In Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2006, the following amounts are claimed:

i.

Actual monetary losses suffered by

Rs.1,00,00,000.00
Rs.3,00,00,000.00

Rs.1,67,61,255.00

the complainant (principal)

ii.

Interest @ 24% p.a. on the principal amount

iii.

Figurative Losses

Rs.92,344,79.00
Rs.1,00,00,000.00

iv.

Losses to the reputation & image of the company

Rs.3,00,00,000.00

6.
Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after its amendment with effect from
15-03-2003 to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
(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 of the first mentioned person but does
not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, commercial purpose does not
include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed
by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of selfemployment

7.
In the complaint before us though the accounts with the bank were opened much before
the Act came to be amended, the transactions being questioned by the complainant company
admittedly took place after the said amendment had already come into force. Therefore, though
the complainant company initially hired or availed services of the aforesaid bank prior to
coming into force of the Act it continued to avail such services even after the said amendment
had come into force.
8.
The question as to whether a company operating a current account with a bank avails the
banking services for commercial purpose or not, came up for consideration of this Commission
in Subhash Motilal Shah & Ors. Vs. Malegaon Merchants Co.op Bank Ltd., R.P.No.2571 of
2012 decided on 12-02-2013. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner had alleged deficiency in
service on the part of the bank. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, holding inter
alia as under:

Admittedly, since Rainbow Corporation is a firm of Ajay Subhash Shah (HUF), i.e.,
jurisdic person, there arise no question of self-employment so as to cover the case under
explanation to section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for
brevity). It is a case relating to an action related with services given while operating the
Current Account of Appellant Rainbow Corporation which was admittedly opened and
used for business purpose, of the business of commission agent and business of yarn
sale. Therefore, since the account itself is connected and related to the business
transactions and such banking activity is required for the functioning of a given
business enterprise of the appellant/complainant, services hired for that purpose would
fall within the category of hiring services for commercial purpose. A useful reference
can be made to free dictionary by FARLEX (on Internet) which defines the Business
Activity as the activity undertaken as a part of commercial enterprise. Further,
reference can be made to an article available on the internet Website Wise Geek
(copyright protected 2003-12 by Conjecture Corporation) and which is written by
Alexis. W, edited by Heater Bailey. Under the circumstances, prima facie
appellant/complainant Rainbow Corporation cannot be a consumer within the meaning
of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

9.
Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the complainant approached this
Commission by way of a revision petition and it was contended by the complainant that
considering the aims and objectives behind enactment of the Act, the expression consumer
and service as defined under the Act should be construed in a comprehensive manner so as to
include the services of commercial and trade oriented nature. In other words, the contention
was that any person who hires services for consideration shall be deemed to be a consumer,
even if the services were obtained in connection with a commercial activity. However, relying
upon the amendment made in the Act with effect from 15-03-2003 the revision petition was
dismissed by this Commission thereby upholding the view taken by the State Commission.
10. In M/s. Sam Fine O Chem Limited Vs. Union Bank of India, C.C.No.39 of 2013,
decided on 12-04-2013, the complainant had availed credit facility from Union Bank of India.
Alleging deficiency in the services provided by the bank he preferred a complaint before this
Commission. Rejecting the complaint this Commission inter alia noted that the complainant had
availed the credit facility service of the bank for expansion of its manufacturing activity which
was a commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant did not fall within the definition of
consumer given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
9.
In view of the above referred decisions of this Commission, the issue under consideration
is no more res integra, as far as this Commission is concerned. We, therefore, hold that the
complainant company is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Accordingly, the complaints are hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the
complainant to approach the appropriate forum/civil court for redressal of its grievance in
accordance with law.
If the complainant approaches the civil court for redressal of its grievance, it shall be

open to the complainant to take benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in
case such a benefit is otherwise available to it in law.
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER