State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Primes Chamical Ltd vs Ifci Ltd on 3 September, 2016
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
CC No. 7 /2016.
Filed on : 28.1.2016.
DECIDED ON : 3.9.2016.
Primes Chemical Ltd.,
Director, Sanjeev Rawat,
s/o Shri Bhalchandji Rawat,
r/o Vishwagulab 28,
Dussrehara Maidan, Ujjain.
.... Complainant.
Versus
1. IFCI Ltd.,
through General Manager,
IFCI, 61, Nehru Palace,
New Delhi.
2. IFCI Ltd.,
through Asstt. General Manager,
Shri Mohinder Sharma,
IFCI, 61, Nehru Palace,
New Delhi.
3. IFCI Ltd.,
through Managing Director & CEO,
IFCI, 61, Nehru Palace,
New Delhi.
4. IFCI Ltd.,
through Assistant Manager,
Paryavas, Arera Hills, Jail Road,
Bhopal.
.... Opposite Parties.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI P. S. RAWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT.
- 2-
ORDER
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Complainant is a Company who for a project of manufacturing various chemicals approached for financial assistance in the form of a term loan of Rs.400 lacs to opposite party / IFCI Ltd. The IFCI on 7.7.1994 sanctioned the loan. Due to some market problem part of loan amount was not disbursed and the disbursed loan was also called back revoking the sanction of the term loan, and recovery proceedings were filed. On mutual discussion it was agreed between the parties that upon payment of Rs.60 lacs towards full, final and satisfactory settlement of the outstanding loan, recovery / execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jabalpur may be withdrawn. Finally, the parties on certain terms and conditions entered into the settlement. It is alleged that as per terms of the settlement dated 31.3.2010 all the debts were paid and IFCI was requested to release all the documents of title, sale deeds, mortgage deeds, NOC and shares of the investors for the Company, but the IFCI did not release and / or return the said documents. Complainant served a notice through an Advocate on IFCI on 12.1.2015, but it also went unheeded. Aggrieved by the conduct of IFCI complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2. The question before us is whether the complainant is a commercial organization and the alleged transaction is commercial in nature, and the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? It is also to be examined whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
- 3-
3. It is apparent that Primes Chemical Ltd. is a commercial organization. The Company had entered into an agreement with the IFCI for term loan of Rs.400/- lacs for a project, the total cost of which had been Rs.1317:81 lacs. From the documents filed by the complainant it is revealed that on occurrence of a dispute between the two parties a settlement was reached between them, under which the complainant proposed to pay Rs.60 lacs towards the dues. As per terms of settlement on 31.3.2010 all the due amount was paid and the documents and shares etc. were asked to be released. In these circumstances, it stands clearly established that the complainant is a commercial organization and the transaction between it and the opposite parties is commercial in nature. Learned counsel for the complainant placing reliance on decisions of the National Commission in R.D. Goel & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2010 NCJ 622 (NC) and Thukaram Anatha Shet Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., 2006 NCJ 430 (NC) argued that hiring or availing of services for commercial purposes were excluded only by incorporation of amendment to section 2 (1)(d) by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. He submitted that since the original transaction between the two parties had taken place in the year 1994 - 1997, when the loan was sanctioned, the amendment which came into operation on 15.3.2003 did not bar the maintainability of the complaint. We are afraid, the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, cannot be accepted for the reason that even though the transaction of loan had taken place in the year 1994 - 1997, but the cause of action for approaching the Forum occurred after 31.3.2010, when after settlement the documents of the complainant were not returned by the IFCI. The ratio R.D. Goel's, supra is not attracted in the instant case where-under the transaction in question occurred in -4- the year 2000. The facts of the case Thukaram, supra also render no help to complainant since the ratio of the decision is only to the effect that non-return of pledged documents after repayment of loan would amount to deficiency in service by the Bank.
4. It is apparent in the case that cause of action for the complainant occurred after 31.3.2010 when the opposite parties did not return / release the documents of the complainant. As such the limitation period available to complainant for filing the complaint was only two years, but the complaint has been filed on 28.1.2016. Merely, by sending a notice through an Advocate on 12.1.2015 the period limitation cannot be deemed to have been extended. On the face of it, the complaint filed in the year 2016 is not maintainable as barred by limitation.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable firstly for complainant not being a 'consumer' and secondly it being barred by the period of limitation. It is accordingly, dismissed.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) (Smt. Neerja Singh)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke