National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shamlal Ramlal Changoiwala vs Dr. Mukund Jagannath Bhusari on 5 December, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2761 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 01/08/2017 in Appeal No. 208/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. SHAMLAL RAMLAL CHANGOIWALA PROP. CHANGOIWALA INDUSTRIES, NEAR SHAKIL GARRAIGE, TOSHNIWAL LAYOUT, AKOLA MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. MUKUND JAGANNATH BHUSARI AGARWES ROAD, OLD CITY, AKOLA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 05 Dec 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
(in both matters)
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 5th December 2017
ORDER
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 01.08.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in two appeals, First Appeal No. A/15/207 and First Appeal No. A/15/208, both filed by the present petitioner, vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the orders dated 03.02.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola in Consumer Complaints No. 2014/56 and 2014/57, partly allowing the said complaints, were upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that the complainant Dr. Mukund Jagannath Bhusari as well as his wife Dr. Renuka Mukund Bhusari, the present respondents filed the consumer complaints no. 2014/57 and 2014/56 respectively against the appellant/opposite party(OP), alleging that they deposited a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs respectively with him on 28.03.2007 and 29.10.2009 respectively by means of cheques drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra. The OP issued deposit receipts for the same and also paid interest till 31.03.2011. When the complainants requested him to make payment of further interest, the OP returned the amounts to the complainants by cheques, but the said cheques were dishonoured by the Bank on 03.05.2012 and 04.05.2012, saying that the Bank account in question had been closed. The complainants proceeded against the OP under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking directions to the OP to pay them the interest on the amount deposited and also compensation on various counts.
3. The complaints were resisted by the OP by filing his written version before the District Forum, saying that the complainants did not come under the definition of 'consumer' as the deposits were made by them for commercial purpose only. Moreover, both the complaints were barred by limitation and hence, not maintainable.
4. The District Forum, after considering the averments made by the parties, held that the complainants did fall within the definition of 'consumer' and the complaints were not barred by limitation. The allegation of unfair trade practice against the OP stood proved as the cheques issued by him to the complainants were dishonoured by the Bank, as the Bank account in question stood closed. The District Forum allowed the complaints and directed the opposite party to return the amounts deposited with him to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and cost of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost in each case. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP challenged the same by way of two appeals before the State Commission. The said appeals having been dismissed vide impugned orders of the State Commission, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
5. During arguments before us in Revision Petition No. 2761/2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had taken the said deposit from the complainant. He argued, however, that the complainant was a highly qualified person, doing business as a medical practitioner and hence, he had full knowledge about the transaction in question. The complainant was aware that the rate of interest involved was much more than the Bank rate etc. Moreover, the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition should, therefore, be allowed and the consumer complaint in question should be dismissed. During arguments on Revision Petition No. 2781/2017 on a different date i.e. 21.09.2017, the learned counsel took up the same line of argument as in the other Revision Petition.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The main issue for consideration in these cases is as to whether the complainants/respondents fall within the definition of 'consumer' as stated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, saying that a person earning his livelihood by means of self-employment only, shall be covered under the definition of consumer. In the present cases, the complainants were earning interest on the amounts deposited with the petitioner and hence, the said activity was a commercial activity. In the written submissions filed by the petitioner also, it was stated that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case above, the consumer complaints in question were not maintainable, as the complainants had invested the said amounts for getting extra money only. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bunga Daniel Babu vs. Sri Vasdeva Constructions & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 429 and Punjab University vs. Unit Trust of India & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 669 in support of his arguments.
8. From the facts and circumstances of both the cases, it is made out that the respondents/complainants made deposits of some amounts with the petitioner/OP on the understanding that interest shall be paid on the deposited amount by the petitioner/OP. The petitioner/OP did pay interest to the complainants upto a certain period and thereafter, refused to pay the same. The petitioner returned the money deposited by the complainants by means of cheques, but the said cheques got bounced, as the Bank account in question had been closed. It is evident therefore that the petitioner had indulged in unfair trade practice vis-a-vis the complainants, rather his conduct in the whole episode is highly undesirable. The petitioner has also tried to take advantage by stating that the complainants did not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. The matter has been discussed in detail in an order passed by this Commission on 12.12.2015 in Consumer Complaint no. 137/2010, Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. in which, it was observed as follows:-
"A person having surplus funds available with him would not like to keep such funds idle and would seek to invest them in such a manner that he gets maximum returns on his investment. He may invest such funds in Bank Deposits, Shares, Mutual Funds and Bonds or Debentures etc. Likewise, he may also invest his surplus funds in purchase of one or more houses, which is/are proposed to be constructed by the service provider, in the hope that he would get better return on his investment by selling the said house(s) on a future date when the market value of such house (s) is higher than the price paid or agreed to be paid by him. That by itself would not mean that he was engaged in the commerce or business of purchasing and selling the house (s)."
9. It would be seen from above that the complainants, who indulge in acts of sale/purchase etc. as a means of regular business, may not fall under the category of 'consumer'. However, if certain surplus funds are invested by a person once a while, in certain deposits, purchase of shares etc., such a person does get covered under the category of 'consumer'. In the present case, there is no evidence produced by the petitioner that the complainants were in regular business of the activity of earning profit by making deposits with various persons/firms etc. Relying upon the judgement passed by this Commission as stated above, we do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainants do not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. It may be stated, however, that while passing the order as stated above, this Commission duly considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (supra) and some other matters, but came to the conclusion that an occasional investor does not lose the status of a 'consumer'.
10. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and the same are ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld, being in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER