State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Family Credit Ltd. vs State Bank Of India on 11 March, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.CC/56/2011 DATE OF FILING:07/07/11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:11/03/14 COMPLAINANT : Family Credit Ltd. Registered Office at Technopolis, 7th Floor Wing-A, Plot No.4, Block-BP Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091 Branch Office at Apeejay House, 2nd Floor 15, Park Street P.S. Park Street, Kolkata OPPOSITE PARTY : State Bank of India Local Head Office at Samriddhi Bhawan 1, Strand Road P.S. Hasting, Kolkata-700 001 Commercial Branch at Mid-Corporate Group 24, Park Street P.S. Park Street Kolkata-700 016 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Mr. A. K. Mukherjee Ld. Advocate Mr. Debasish Ghosal Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Mr. Surajit Auddy Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT The case of the Complainant, in short, is that in December 2008 by virtue of an agreement between the parties, the Complainant deposited Rs.45 crore (Rupees Forty Five Crore) for 1000 days in fixed deposit account against proper receipt. The date of maturity was 22/09/11. It was agreed upon that the fixed deposit will carry interest @ 10% p.a. and an amount of Rs.58,99,26,085/- is payable on maturity. Surprisingly after 7 months the OP informed the Complainant that the rate of interest applicable was 9.5% and it was inadvertently mentioned as 10%. The Complainant strongly denied such contention and raised objection against calculation of interest on the fixed deposit @ 9.5% instead of 10% as agreed upon.
The Complainant vide its letter dated 05/05/11 requested the OP to explain the difference at the earliest and in reply such request was denied by letter dated 06/05/11. For such reasons, the complaint was filed before this Commission praying for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.78,00,000/- being the difference of interest on the fixed deposit of Rs.45 crore being the loss suffered due to wrongful and arbitrary decision of the OP and damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss of reputation.
The OP filed W.V. contending, inter alia, that the Complainant is a Body Corporate registered under Companies Act, 1956 doing business of lending money and other business activities for commercial purpose and for commercial gains. The Bank issued interest certificate @ 10% for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2009 in favour of the Complainant.
When the fixed deposit was opened the rate of interest for fixed deposit upto Rs.1 crore was 10% p.a. for 1000 days, but above Rs.1 crore the rate was 9.50% p.a. for 1000 days. The error was inadvertent on the part of the Bank as detected by the Corporate Sector, Mumbai. The Bank made several requests to the Complainant to submit the original STDR for necessary rectification and reissue of the same, but the Complainant intentionally and deliberately neglected to cooperate. To obtain illegal gains in respect of the said inadvertent error the complaint has been filed. The Complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(i)(d) of the C. P. Act.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that there was a concluded contract between the parties and as per the terms of contract the OP is bound to pay interest @ 10% p.a. It is contended that the OP Bank after 7 months of opening the fixed deposit account came up with a new story that the rate of interest would be 9.5% p.a. instead of 10% p.a. It is submitted that there cannot be any novation of contract. It is contended that the OP unilaterally paid interest @ 9.5%. It is submitted that there cannot be any subsequent change in the agreement. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decision reported in Income Tax Reports Vol.240 Page 24 (Madras High Court) [South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax].
The Learned Counsel for the OP has submitted that the petition of complaint is not maintainable, in as much as, the Private Limited Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 cannot file a consumer complaint. It is contended that the Complainant Company is a subsidiary of a foreign financial company at Paris. It is submitted that the circular was received from the Corporate Office to the effect that the rate of interest on fixed deposit upto Rs.1 crore was 10% p.a. but above Rs.1 crore it was 9.5% p.a. It is submitted that after the receipt of the instruction from the Corporate Office at Mumbai the Complainant was requested to submit the STDR in original for rectification, but it was not complied with. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1980 SC 2181 [LICI Vs. D. J. Bahadur & Ors.]; 2013 (3) CPR 430 (NC) [M/s Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Lodha Healthy Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd.]; 2013 (4) CPR 150 (NC) [Kulbhushan Churra Vs. Simar Kaur].
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant being a Private Limited Company cannot file the consumer complaint. In support of such contention the Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to the decision as mentioned above. The Learned Counsel for the OP further contended that the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in as much as, the amount of total fixed deposit was Rs.45 crore. On this point the Learned Counsel for the Complainant has referred to the decision in the case of South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) wherein it has been held that interest was not business income, but income from other sources. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned it is clear that under the provisions of Section 11(1) the value of the services obtained exceeded Rs.1 crore and, therefore, we are of the considered view that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Secondly, as to the commercial activity it has been held in the decision reported in 2013 (3) CPR 430 [ M/s Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lodha Healthy Construction & Developers] that Private Limited Company cannot maintain consumer complaint. In this connection the Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association wherefrom it appears that the object of the Complainant Company is to carry on and undertake the business of financing, leasing, hire purchase and lease operations of all kinds, purchasing, selling etc. In the cause title of the complaint the occupation of the Complainant has been described as carrying on business. The Learned Counsel for the OP has also referred to the decision reported in 2011 (2) CPR 376(NC) [Smt. Sushma Goel Vs. Punjab National Bank] wherein it has been held that Bank account maintained by a commercial organization for a commercial purpose falls outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the considered view that the Complainant Company is engaged in commercial activity and the Complainant cannot file the consumer complaint. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The Complainant, therefore, is not entitled to get any relief.
The petition of complaint is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT