Shri Sujit Rameshchandra Jirapure, Tah-dist-nashik Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujrat and Another - Court Judgment

Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose Consumer Complaint No.261/2006 was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Nashik by its judgment dated 13/2/2008.

2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

3) The complainant is having business styled as ‘Mousam Resorts. He had opened account with the O.P./Bank. His grievance is that O.P.No.2 ICICI Bank Limited withdrew Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- under quarterly average balance and roaming current account and debited the said amount from his current account. His further grievance is that he had taken loan for his Scorpio vehicle from O.P.No.2/Bank and despite payment of EMIs, the vehicle was taken away by the Bank. According to him, the charges recovered from him under quarterly average balance and roaming current account charges is illegal and therefore he filed consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.20 Lakh plus interest at the rate of 18% and also prayed for refund of R.C.A. and Q.A.B. charges and also prayed that the O.P./Bank should directed to return the vehicle they had illegally possessed.

4) The O.P.No.2/Bank filed written statement and pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant is not a consumer since his account is current account and he opened the said account for business purpose. His pecuniary demands are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum as such it should be dismissed with cost. The Bank pleaded that the amounts were debited under Q.A.B. and R.C.A. charges as per agreement and vehicle was repossessed because the complainant had not paid EMIs. The complainant had taken shop and establishment license for ‘Mousam Resorts and he had shown that 11 workers were working in his establishment. Therefore, the complainant was having commercial activity and on that count the complaint should be dismissed since he is not a ‘consumer.

5) On considering the documents and affidavits placed on record, the District Forum Nashik was pleased to hold that the complaint filed by the complainant was involving the claim upto Rs.25 Lakh which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. It also held that the complainant was not a ‘consumer because he had opened the current account with ICICI Bank Nashik for business purpose. He had employed 11 workers on his establishment just to earn profit and dispute is arising out of his commercial activity and therefore the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the Original complainant has filed this appeal.

6) None appeared for the appellant when this appeal was called out for admission. Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi, Adv. for the respondent was present and he was heard extensively.

7) Upon the hearing counsel present, agreeing with him and agreeing with the findings recorded by the District Forum, we hold that the consumer complaint as field by the complainant/appellant in the Forum below was improper primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the complainant is having commercial activity. He had opened current account with ICICI Bank for his business purpose. He is having commercial activity in running ‘Mousam Resorts. His establishment has 11 workers on the pay roll and therefore he was rightly held to be not a ‘consumer who could file consumer complaint. Secondly, in his complaint he has claimed amount of about Rs.25 Lakhs from the ICICI Bank under various heads which far exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum which is upto Rs. 20 Lakhs. In the circumstances, the dismissal order passed by the District Forum is appearing to be just and proper and it is sustainable in law. There is no merit in the appeal preferred by the original complainant. Hence, we pass following order.

Order:

1) Appeal stand summarily rejected.

2) No order as to cost.

3) Inform the parties accordingly.