State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prathista Industries Limited ... vs Iifl Finance Limited Through Its ... on 3 July, 2025
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUM ER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COM M ISSION:HYDERABAD
C.C.30/2025
Between :
M/s Prathista Industries Limited,
Regd. Office : 8-2-120/114,
Meenakshi Banjara Ville, Road No.02, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad -500 033, Telangana State,
Represented by its Authorised Person,
Mr. Naishadham Udaya Bhaskara Sarma,
Mobile No.9440808352.
.....Complainant
And:
IIFL Finance Limited, Represented by Managing Director,
IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, Road 16V, Wagle Estate,
Thane West, Mumbai-400 604,
Email : [email protected]
.....Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Party-in-person
For the Opposite Party : Admission Stage
QUORAM :
HON'BLE SM T.M EENA RAMANATHAN.....IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT
&
HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHU BABU....M EM EBER-JUDICIAL
THURSDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF JULY
TW O THOUSAND TW ENTY FIVE
*******
Order: PER HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHU BABU....M EM EBER-JUDICIAL
1.The Registry took objection about the maintainability of the complaint on the pecuniary jurisdiction and also on the commercial nature of transactions involved in the complaint vis-à-vis whether the complainant is a "Consumer"?
2. The Complainant is a Private Limited Company which is engaged in several trade activities besides "on-going Research and Development in the field of agricultural Biotechnology input products like fermentation processed Bio-pharma and Animal Feed and Health gain products etc,. It is further averred that their project is to "anchor" livelihood of the farming community by supplying fertilizers, soil conditioner products with a highly discounted prices. It is the 2 contention of the complainant that as the unit which is the representative of the complainant Company based in a small village in Yadadri District of Telangana is a non-profit Organisation/Anchor Corporate. Therefore, it is a non-profit Organisation and will come within the four corners of the definition of the "Consumer".
3. Schedule -I, term sheet issued by the opposite party goes to show that the scope of the programme is to purchase invoices with discount facility to the complainant Company and the size of the programme is Rupees twenty crores and type of facility is PID. The borrower is shown as the complainant. The rate of interest is mentioned as 13% per annum and over due interest at 24% per annum. It is having tie up with corporate i.e. the Complainant. Across the Bench, the complainant counsel stated that, the loan or the facility taken by the "Anchor Corporate" would repay the amount from and out of profits received by the complainant Company from other wings. No separate account is maintained in the name of "Anchor unit" and on the other hand it is mentioned as the Complainant/Company. In paragraph 11 of the complaint in page 3, it is mentioned that, in addition to the refusal to provide discount to the 2 nd lot of invoice, the opposite party started demanding the payment of past dues abruptly, till the operative period of the agreement and charged extra amount of Rs.8,82,204/- towards penal interest and incidental legal charges, even after payment of Rs.77,70,000/- towards penal interest, which is illegal. So, there is pecuniary jurisdiction to this Commission. More so, when the complainant was permitted to utilize maximum amount of Rupees two crores in a calendar year from the date of agreement.
4. As already stated supra, no separate Bank Account is maintained for the "Anchor Unit". The alleged help of Complainant for supply of products on discount prices is in the nature of Corporate Social Responsibility to the public at large. Therefore, the complainant cannot be considered as a "Non-Profit Organization" for merely spending some amount to give discounted at prices to the Agriculturists etc,. The products that was manufactured after research will be sold to public at large for profits only. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant 3 cannot be considered as a "Consumer", since its activities are commercial in nature. The violation of agreement between the complainant and the Bank cannot be brought within the purview of the Consumer Complaint. The citation relied upon by the complainant i.e. M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and another vs Harjol Ahluwualia Through K.S., is not applicable to the facts of the case. Same is the case of Aerostar Helmets Pvt. Ltd., vs. Adani M2K Project Llp and others of the Hon'ble NCDRC.
5. In the result, the complaint is rejected at the admission stage itself, with an observation that the complainant is not a "Consumer" within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also it is not a "Consumer Complaint".
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT M EMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 03.07.2025
AD*