State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Mona Dahiya vs Dbs Bank India Limited on 24 April, 2026
1 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, AT MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/27/FA/62/2026
(Appeal arisen out of order dated 15/10/2025 is passed by the
Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai,
at Parel in Complaint No. 118 of 2025)
DR. MONA DAHIYA
R/O - Lincoln, A/104,
Omaxe Grand, Sector 93-B, ....APPELLANT/ORIGINAL
Noida - 201304 COMPLAINANT
V/s
1. DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED
Principle Nodal Officer Express Tower,
16th Floor,Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400021
2. MOTILAL OSWAL ALTERNATIVE
INVESTMENT ADVISORS PRIVATE
LIMITED, Motilal Oswal Tower,
Rahimtullah Sayani Road,Opp. Parel
St Depot,Prabhadevi, Mumbai -40005 .....RESPONDENTS
*********************************************************************************
Before : Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma : Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani : Member
*********************************************************************************
For Appellant : Advocate Shri. Krutik Veera
*********************************************************************************
ORAL ORDER
(24/04/2026)
Per - Hon'ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani : Member
1] The present appeal has arisen out of order dated 15/10/2025 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai at Parel, Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/118/2025. It is contended by the appellant that the original 2 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] consumer complaint was dismissed by the learned District Commission at the stage of admission itself. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2] The factual matrix of the appeal is as follows;
The appellantis highly qualified and reputed IVF Specialist and longstanding customer of the Respondent no.1 bank. In April 2019, the appellant induced on the advice and representation of the Respondent no.1 bank and its Relationship Manager, to invest Rs. 10 Lakh in "IREF (IV) fund" of the respondent no.2 as a personal investment. It is further contended that, on 18/10/2024, Respondent no.2 in the collusion with Respondent no.1 bank purported to the fund the remaining commitment of Rs. 90 Lakh in the name of appellant, thereby creating an artificial explosers of 1 Crore and scandling her with penal interest @ 18% p.a., undisclosed management/administrative fees and heavy Taxes/TDS liability on notional income never received. The appellant has consequently suffered wrongful penal interest demands, wrongful tax liabilities and substantial fees, compounded by incorrect FORM 26AS/TDS entries and the Respondent's failure to provide any lawful resolution despite of multiple escalations and a detail legal notice dated 18/10/2024. The Respondent no.1 and its reply to the legal notice, denied all the liabilities and disowned any responsibility for facilitating the appellant's exit, contrary to its prior of communications that it was actively exploring, negotiation, exit options and Respondent no.2 by its reply dated 16/12/2024 sought to shift the entire responsibility on to 3 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] Respondent no.1 by alleging that bank would have been explained all the material terms to the appellant at the time of referral, a claim that is demonstrable false of the record. In pursuance of that the appellant had filed Consumer Complaint no. CC/118/2026 before the Learned District Commission, South Mumbai at Parel seeking refund of principle amount of Rs. 10 Lakh waiver/refund of penal interest and compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/. The learned District Commission as on 15/10/2025 arbitrarily dismissed the complaint without returning the findings on, mis-selling unauthorized fundings, wrongful charges, incorrect TDS and jurisdiction or the appellant's 'consumer' status and the breach of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant before this Commission. The Appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order.
3] Heard the Counsel for the Appellant on the admission of the appeal. Perused the record. In the argument, the appellant has relied upon two citations; Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4841/2023, "Sant Rohidas Leather Industries V/S Vijaya Bank" wherein he referred para no. 20. The same para has been reproduced here.
"In the instant case, the transaction out of which the complaint arises is regarding a deposit made by the appellant with the Bank. Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act defines 'service'. It means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, finance, insurance etc. There is no dispute that such deposit was made and the Bank had agreed to pay interest. Thus, to that extent the respondent-bank is the service provider and the appellant a service
4 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] recipient qua Bank's contractual obligation to pay interest and maturity value of the FDR. Therefore, in that context, the appellant can be considered a consumer of banking services offered by the respondent. However, the moot question is whether there was any deficiency in rendering those services. If yes, whether those services were availed for a commercial purpose. Both the issues are interlinked because if the Bank's defense that the FDR was pledged for availing credit facility is accepted, not only a commercial purpose gets imputed to the transaction but then there may be no deficiency in rendering service qua the of 26 FDR as it would be subject to a subsequent contract of pledge."
The appellant has further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of "Mathew K. Cherian V/S SCDRC & others". In the said citation para no.16 has been referred on the point of that the complainant is the 'consumer' of Respondent no.1 as well as of Respondent no.2. He also relied upon the ratio pertaining to the "Laxmi Engineering Works" (Supra) discussed in the citation herein above mentioned in para no.16. The Counsel of the appellant at the time of argument had submitted that the learned District Commission has committed error while deciding relationship between appellant and the respondent no.1 is not 'consumer' and 'service provider' as there is transaction between the appellant and the Respondent is of commercial nature. The counsel of the appellant submitted that the respondent no.1 misleaded and induced her to invest the amount in the scheme of "IREF (IV) Fund" of the Respondent no.2 as a personal investment. The said act on the part of the Respondent no.1 bank is a deficiency in service. Thereafter the out rightly the amount has been transferred to the 5 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] respondent no.2 from his account in the said scheme to the extent of Rs.90 Lakh. The said aspect has not been considered by the learned District Commission, at the time of admission of the Consumer Complaint. It is further argued by the Appellant's Counsel that the complainant is coming under the purview of the definition of 'consumer' as per section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The exclusion clause of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant has further argued that, complainant has suffered unreasonable loss and was intended to invest only Rs. 10 Lakh in the said scheme; despite of that due to unfair trade practice of the Respondent no.1, Complainant has suffered huge loss. Therefore, Complainant has rightly filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and that is to be admitted by setting aside the said order.
4] After hearing on the point of admission of the appeal as well as referring the appeal memo, list of documents, annexures along with the appeal memo, citations placed on record, we come to the conclusion that following order should be passed by as reasoned below. REASONING :
5] The appellant has referred to the agreement between the appellant and the respondent no.1 bank as well as respondent no.2 below Exh-A. We have gone through the terms of that agreement. The amount of capital commitment was aggerated to the extent of Rs. 1 Crore. We have
6 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] gone through the order passed by learned District Commission as well as para 13 of the original complaint; wherein it is categorically stated that apart from Rs.10 Lakh, Rs. 90 lackh have been paid by the respondent no.1 from the appellant's account to the alleged scheme and the total amount invested to the extent of Rs. 1 Crore. It is the admitted fact that as per section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, "the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is confined to the cases where consideration for the goods or services does not exceed Rs. 50 lakh". The learned District Commission while deciding the original consumer complaint, in its findings, has categorically mentioned that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subject matter is been ceased by the District Commission, as the paid amount for the services or contributing agreement shows the value of 1 Crore. We further have gone through the subject matter and also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission, wherein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds V/S Kartik Das"
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 225 is referred wherein ratio has been held that the 'investor' or the 'prospective share-holder' is not coming under the purview of definition of a 'consumer'. In the present case, the appellant/the original complainant herself has contended in the consumer complaint that amount was invested in the scheme of funds preferred in the Contributory agreement. In view of the ratio laid down in "Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds V/S Kartik Das", it reveals that the proviso clause pertaining to the investment made for the commercial purpose that will not come under the purview of the definition under
7 [ SC/27/FA/62/2026] section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the impugned order of the learned District Commission is rightly passed.
6] In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is not admitted and disposed of. The Learned District Consumer Commission's impugned order is confirmed.
2. The present appellant is having liberty to approach to the competent Commission or Civil Court or Regular Authority.
3. No cost is imposed.
4. Copy of the order be furnished to the appellant free of cost.
[Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani] Member kk