PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs Win Poly Filaments Pvt Ltd

COST of Rs.2,000/ - for adjournment imposed vide order dated 24.9.2014 has been paid in cash.

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "the State Commission") dated 18.7.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed appeal No.254/2013 preferred by the petitioner Bank and affirmed the order of the District Forum, Sonepat in consumer complaint No.298/2012.

BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Bank alleging deficiency in service on their part inasmuch as the Bank allegedly released the documents pertaining to export of a consignment sent to a party at Germany without collecting the consideration amount of US Dollar 12310 whereas as per the arrangement between the parties and the practice the opposite party was required to release the documents only after collecting the consideration amount. Consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement denying the allegations.

THE District Forum on consideration and appraisal of evidence, allowed the complaint and directed thus: - " we direct the respondent bank to make the payment of Rs.683205 (Rs.six lacs eighty three thousands two hundred five) alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/ - (Rs.one thousand) for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses."

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Haryana vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

LEARNED Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Foras below are not sustainable because both the Foras below have ignored the fact that the respondent had no locus standi to file the complaint as the respondent company is not covered under the definition of consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "Act").

LEARNED Shri Jitendra Panchariya, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders and submitted that the respondent company undisputedly engaged the services of the petitioner who was deficient in service inasmuch releasing the documents to the importer at Germany without insisting for the payment of consideration amount.

IN order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to have a look on the definition of consumer as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The relevant provision is reproduced 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"

ON reading of the above, it is clear that a person is a consumer who purchases goods or avails of services for consideration whether paid or deferred but does not include a person who bought the goods or availed of the services for commercial purpose.

ON reading of the complaint it is evident that the respondent/complainant is a private Ltd. company engaged in manufacture and sale of yarn and fiber and it had deposited the export papers with the petitioner Bank for collection of consideration amount of the consignment i.e. USD 12310. Thus, it is clear that the services of the petitioner Bank were availed by the complainant in relation to a commercial transaction i.e. export of the goods. Therefore, in my view, the respondent falls within the exception carved out in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) by way of amendment of 2003 and as such the complainant is not a consumer. As per the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint can be maintained by the consumer or someone on behalf of the consumer. Since the respondent company does not fall within the ambit of the consumer, it had no locus standi to file the consumer complaint. This aspect has been totally ignored by both the foras below. Therefore, their orders being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.

IT may be noted that on the aspect of consumer respondent/complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Chandra Grover vs. Bank of India, 2000 3 SCR 587. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to this case because it relates to the period prior to the amendment in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) whereby the exception in the definition of the consumer was carved out.

IN view of the discussion above, I am of the view that the orders of the Foras below have been passed without jurisdiction ignoring the fact that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer.

REVISION petition is, therefore, allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

IT is, however, clarified that this order will not come in the way of the respondent/complainant to avail of his remedy by moving the appropriate forum.