INDIA EXPORT CORPORATION vs CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK

THIS appeal by the complainants is directed against the order dated 13.8.2003 of State Commission. Delhi whereby complaint was dismissed with liberty reserved to the appellants to pursue remedy that may be available to them under any other law. Prayer made in the complaint (copy at pp 12-33) is as under : (a) direct the opposite parties to allow the complainants to use the SOD account No. 14 as sanctioned to the claimants; (b) direct waiver of the interest in the account of complainants from the date of stoppage till disposal of the case; (c) grant a sum of Rs. 42,19,295/- as compensation in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties due to arbitrary, mala fide, illegal action of the opposite parties causing human financial losses, reputation losses and for mental torture, agony, tension to the complainants as enumerated in para No. 16 of the complaint; (d) pass such other order/direction which this Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

IT was alleged that the appellants for starting business of rice, approached respondents 2 and 3/opposite parties 2 and 3 for grant of loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- by way of overdraft facility. Sanction for ODMS limit in the said sum was conveyed to the appellants vide letter dated 18.8.2000 by the respondents. This limit was to expire on 31.8.2001. Vide letter dated 27.9.2000, the respondents conveyed to the appellants about extension of period of limit upto 31.10.2002. IT was further alleged that appellants moved the Trade Mark Authority, Mumbai for allotting trade mark ''Betaj Badshah'' for their brand of rice. Appellants also placed orders for purchase of rice worth Rs. 15.60 lakhs with Om Kumar, broker. 25% of the ordered value of rice was paid to him towards advance while remaining 75% was to be paid at the time of lifiting the stocks. In case the stocks was not lifted within 60 days, the money paid by way of advance was to be forefeited by the said broker. IT was further stated that appellants took on rent godown and office. In February 2001, the appellants recruited a technical person for quality control at a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Seven persons @ 1,500/- per month for one year were engaged for loading and unloading the gunny bags and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to them in advance. Peon and receptionist were also employed in August, 2000. IT was pleaded that the appellants started operating SOD account No. 14 and withdrew therefrom Rs. 50,000/- on 29.1.2001, Rs. 30,000/- on 15.2.2001 and Rs. 40,000/- on 19.2.2001 for making payment to the broker. The appellants paid total sum of Rs. 3.9 lakhs to the broker out of which Rs. 1.20 lakhs were drawn from the said account. By the letter dated 2.3.2001/14.3.2001, the respondents communicated their decision to unilaterally withdraw the sanctioned OD facility without giving any prior notice. As a result of that action, the appellant suffered loss damage to the time of Rs. 42,19,295/- as detailed in para No. 20 of the complaint. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, the appellants filed complaint claiming aforesaid reliefs which came to be dismissed by the order under appeal. Submission advanced by Mr. Ratan Sharma for appellants was that the State Commission could not have reached the conclusion that alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondents was connected with commercial purpose without having recorded evidence and dismissal of complaint at the stage of admission was, therefore, legally erroneous. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh, (1997) 1 SCC 131. In this decision, the question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent had been using the machine ''Brickman'' for clay preparation, brick moulding, brick drying and brick turning, after purchasing the same from the appellants for earning livelihood within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). While dealing with that question, it was held that the word ''self-employment'' is not defined under the Act and it connotes altogether a different concept, namely, consumer alone uses the machinery purchased for the purpose of manufacture by employing himself in working out or producing goods for earning his livelihood. Engaging a technical person for quality control, seven persons for loading and unloading gunny bags, peon and receptionist for the office as alleged in the complaint by the appellants would show that alleged deficiency in service was connected with commercial activities which has been excluded from the purview of Act by amending the definition of ''consumer'' w.e.f. 15.3.2002. Ratio in Cheema Engineering Services case (supra) supports the conclusion reached by us above. The complaint was, thus, rightly dismissed without calling upon the respondents to file their written version and thereafter asking the parties to lead evidence by the State Commission by the order under appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. Appeal dismissed.