State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ng Technology vs Punjab National Bank on 9 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 12 / 2015
NG Technology, a Partnership Firm
through its Partner Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta S/o Sh. Anand Kumar Mehta
Street Kirtipal, Near Anaj Mandi
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
......Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank
through its Senior Manager
Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur
District Haridwar
2. Punjab National Bank
through its Chairman
7, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi - 110066
......Opposite Parties
Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, Partner of the Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Advocate, holding brief of Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned
Counsel for the Opposite Parties
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 09/05/2017
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by NG Technology (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties - Punjab National Bank.2
2. The present order has been passed on the application dated 21.04.2016 (Paper Nos. 113 to 114) moved by the opposite parties for dismissal of the consumer complaint. Therefore, we need not narrate the entire facts mentioned in the consumer complaint filed by the complainant and suffice it would be to narrate the facts which are relevant for the disposal of the said application.
3. In the application dated 21.04.2016 moved by the opposite parties, it has been stated that the complainant is a Partnership Firm, therefore, does not fall under the definition of "consumer", as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is having a Current Account with the opposite party No. 1 for commercial purposes. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present consumer complaint. On the above grounds, the consumer complaint has been sought to be dismissed by the opposite parties.
4. The complainant filed objections dated 09.05.2016 against the application dated 21.04.2016 moved by the opposite parties. In the objections, it is stated that the complainant is a consumer. It is wrong to say that the partnership firm is doing the work for commercial purpose. The partners of the partnership firm are engaged in the partnership business for earning their livelihood. Therefore, the application moved by the opposite parties is liable to be rejected.
5. We have heard Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, partner of the complainant - firm and Smt. Savita Sethi, Advocate, holding brief of Sh. R.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the application dated 21.04.2016 moved by the opposite parties and perused the record.
36. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant is a partnership firm and Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta and Smt. Nirmala Devi are the partners of the complainant - firm. The copy of the Partnership Deed is on record (Paper Nos. 7 to 11). Clause No. 1 of the partnership deed says that the business of the partnership firm shall be carried on under the name and style of "M/s NG Technology". We lay emphasis on the word "business". Clause No. 4 of the partnership deed says that the business of the firm shall be that of "Website & Software Development and Services". In the partnership deed, it is nowhere mentioned that the firm has been created by the partners, who are son and mother in relation, for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. There is also no dispute that the complainant - firm is having a Current Account No. 1829002100024317 with the opposite party No. 1 - Punjab National Bank, Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur, District Haridwar, as has also been mentioned by the complainant in para 1 of the consumer complaint. The grievance of the complainant is that it was not provided the facilities like Credit Card, ATM Card and Corporate Internet Banking by the bank in relation to the said account, as a result of which, the complainant has suffered loss.
7. As is stated above, the complainant is a partnership firm engaged in development of hardware and software. The complainant has opened a current account with the opposite party No. 1. Learned counsel for the opposite parties cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sathya Sai Agencies Vs. Punjab National Bank and others; 2016 (1) CPR 612 (NC). In the said case, the complainant - M/s Sathya Sai Agencies, a partnership firm through its partner filed a consumer complaint against the bank, alleging deficiency in service in respect of payment made by the bank in pursuance to an expired cheque. It was held that the complainant is 4 not a consumer. In Consumer Case No. 168 of 2009; M/s Edit II Productions Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Limited, decided by the Hon'ble National Commission per order dated 10.04.2015, also pressed into service by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, it was held that the complainant being a partnership concern engaged in production of TV serials, is not a consumer and has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. It was further held that on reading of the complaint, it is evident that the complainant is a partnership firm and complaint is based upon the allegations of deficiency in service in relation to cash credit account extended by the opposite party - bank to the complainant. Obviously, the cash credit account was opened in connection with the production business of the complainant - firm, therefore, it can not be disputed that the services of the opposite party - bank were availed by the partnership firm for commercial purpose. In the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Ramayan Yadav and another; 2015 (2) CPR 838 (NC), further cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that since the services of the bank were obtained for commercial purpose and, as such, the partnership firm or its partners can not be termed as consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also cited one more decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M/s Nav Bharat Press (Raipur) through its Partner Sh. Sameer Vs. M/s Sahara Prime City Limited through its Authorised Officer and others; 2013 (3) CPR 465 (NC). In the said case, it was held that a partnership firm which is transacting business of printing and publication of newspapers, can not be said to be a consumer. It was further held that Guest House is meant for commercial purpose and it can not be said that the premises will be used by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and the complainant is not a 5 consumer. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further cited a decision dated 17.03.2016 of this Commission given in First Appeal No. 163 of 2013; Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Sh. Manish Agarwal, wherein it was held that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant, who was having a current account with the bank, in regard to deficiency in service on the part of the bank, was not maintainable.
8. In view of the fact that the complainant is a partnership firm engaged in business / commercial activity and also that the complainant has opened a current account with the opposite party No. 1, therefore, in view of the above legal position, it can safely be said that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer", as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable. It is also worth to mention here that in the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that due to non-providing the required facilities by the bank, there was loss in the income of the complainant. We again lay emphasis on the word "income". Thus, it can safely be said that the aim of the business carried out by the complainant was to generate profit, which also ousts the complainant from the category of being a "consumer", in view of the definition of the word given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. This apart, the perusal of the consumer complaint also shows that the same is highly overvalued. The complainant has claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,53,620/- besides Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony. There is no detail as to how the complainant is entitled to such an excessive compensation of Rs. 86,53,620/- from the bank and also Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony. It appears 6 that the relief claimed by the complainant has been overvalued, with a sole intention to bring the consumer complaint before this Commission, without giving any detail / bifurcation of the amount claimed and to show how the complainant is entitled to such compensation. This apart, the perusal of para 13 of the consumer complaint will show that the amount of Rs. 86,53,620/- claimed by the complainant is imaginary loss in income to the complainant. The exact words are, ";fn bl Ms<+ yk[k ;w0,l0 MkWyj ds dk;Z dks ifjoknh foi{kh ls okafNr lqfo/kk,a feyus ij vatke ns ikrk rks Hkh ifjoknh dh vk; bl nkSjku :0 86]53]620@& ls de ugha gksrhA" Thus, the complainant has not given any basis for grant of compensation of Rs. 86,53,620/- besides Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental agony.
10. However, since we have come to the conclusion that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" and hence the consumer complaint is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and we refrain ourselves from recording any finding on the merit of the case. Consequently, the application dated 21.04.2016 moved by the opposite parties is fit to be allowed.
11. Application dated 21.04.2016 moved by the opposite parties is allowed. As a result thereof, the consumer complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K