Skip to content


Maragatham Pressings, Rep by Its Managing Partner, K. Natarajan and Others Vs. the General Manager, Andhra Bank and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided On
Case NumberCCSR.No. 38 of 2014
Judge
AppellantMaragatham Pressings, Rep by Its Managing Partner, K. Natarajan and Others
RespondentThe General Manager, Andhra Bank and Another
Excerpt:
.....response was made, the complainants are forced to lose the lesser rate of interest in clearing the term loan account and to pay penalty amount and thereby a loss to the tune of rs.31 lacs caused to the complainants and thereby the complaint came to be filed. 4. we have heard the complainants counsel in this regard and perused the averments of the complaint. the complainant claimed rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony when the complainant is not a natural person or individual person and having the business in the name of maragatham pressing represented by its managing partner cannot have any mental agony as an artificial person being a firm or company who claims damages for mental agony for the alleged deficiency of service. in para-1 of the complaint, it is stated that the 2nd.....
Judgment:

(The complainants filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant from to in OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under term loan with interest till date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 07.03.2014 and heard the arguments on the side of the complainants this Commission made the following order:)

A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member

1. The complaint placed before us by the registry to determine the maintainability of the complaint.

2. The complainants represented by its Managing Partner seeking reliefs for the directions to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant to the OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under the term loan with interest till the date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs.

3. The complainants have sought for renewal of Open Cash Facility to the tune of Rs.228 lacs for the development and to run the business which was sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party as OCC account loan having interest at 14.75% and also requested for five term loan with various account numbers and the repayment for the same to the extent of Rs.2,72,00,000/- from 27.3.2013 to 13.08.2013 were deposited for repayment and these amounts are to be credited in OCC account. But the opposite parties have informed that the amount payable to the OCC account upto 3.8.2013 for Rs.1,99,00,000/- and thereby the 2nd opposite party was instructed to close the OCC account and waive the rate of interest and since no response was made, the complainants are forced to lose the lesser rate of interest in clearing the term loan account and to pay penalty amount and thereby a loss to the tune of Rs.31 lacs caused to the complainants and thereby the complaint came to be filed.

4. We have heard the complainants counsel in this regard and perused the averments of the complaint. The complainant claimed Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony when the complainant is not a natural person or individual person and having the business in the name of Maragatham Pressing represented by its Managing Partner cannot have any mental agony as an artificial person being a Firm or company who claims damages for mental agony for the alleged deficiency of service. In Para-1 of the complaint, it is stated that the 2nd opposite party sanctioned the renewal of open cash facility to the tune of 228 lacs and as per the 2nd para they have requested for 5 term loans to the extent of Rs.22.60 lacs + Rs.55.20 lacs + Rs.100 lacs + Rs.75 lacs in all totaling Rs.252.80 lacs out of which around Rs.2.72 lacs were said to have been deposited for repayment on various dates. These huge amounts are all only for the purpose of development and to run the Maragatham Pressing as per the averments in Para-1 of the complaint would certainly goes to show the business is for commercial purpose in nature and he cannot be considered as personal lively eke hood by way of self employment as per proviso explanation under Section 2 ( 1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Learned counsel relied upon the rulings relating to the same reported (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 727 in the case of œStandard Chartered Bank Ltd “vs- Dr.B.N.Raman œin which it is observed as follows :

œA. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ Ss.9,11,17 and 21 “ National Commission, State Commission and District Forum “ Nature and scope of functions of “ Held, they are remedial agencies and their functions are quasi-judicial “ Their purpose is to decide consumer disputes

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ Ss.2 (1) (o), (d) (ii) and (g) “Banks “ Non-sovereign functions of statutory bodies come under the term œservice? under S.2 (1) (o) “ customers to whom services are rendered by the banks are consumers within the meaning of S.2 (1) (d) (ii) “ Banker and Customer “ Customer service “ Words and phrases “ banking “ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.5 (b).?

and another ruling reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2181 in the case of œVimal Chandra Grover “vs- Bank of India?. These rulings are applicable only regarding the service rendered by the service provider and not relating the nature of Commercial purpose as defined under the Act. As per the ruling reported in CDJ 2013 (Cons.) Case No.538 in the case of œShailendra “vs- M/s.Kulkar Corporation and Others? in relating to the same it is observed in para -12 as follows:

œOn perusal of the complaint and affidavit in support of the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum it is revealed that the complainant has nowhere mentioned that the said machine is purchased for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. As per explanation given under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of C.P.Act œ 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 self employment. In fact, as pointed out by the appellant while claiming the compensation the complaint has sought compensation in respect of expenses incurred by him towards salaries, wages, of the employees etc. He has also mentioned in his complaint that due to defective machine he had to sustain loss in his business. The very nature of the complaint reveals that complainant had purchased the machine not only to earn profit out of it. Hence the complainant does not fall within the explanation given under Section 2 (1) (d) Iii) C.P.Act?

Hence in view of the foregoing discussions and reasons and the ruling stated as above reported in CDJ 2013 (Cons) Case No.538 that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission being in the nature of commercial purpose. Hence we are of the view that the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate authorities and not before this Consumer Commission.

In the result, the complaint is returned.

The Registry is directed to return the complaint along with court fee if any paid by the complainant with liberty to the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate authorities.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //