VICTORY ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-named complainant, a company engaged in the business of manufacture of electrical transformers has fxled this complaint against the opposite party-Bank and others alleging deficiency in service on the part of the later in relation to certain bank transactions and for claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) We have heard Mrs. Anuradha Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the complainant on the question of maintainability of the present complaint before this Commission and have considered her submissions. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 01.06.2010, the main branch of IDBI Bank issued an irrevocable 90-day letter of credit bearing No. 20101271LCU0382 in favour of the complainant and said issuing bank undertook to pay to the complainant or its negotiating bank a sum of Rs.2,29,79,166 (rupees two

(3.) Going by the averments and allegations made in the complaint and the nature of dispute raised in the present complaint, the main question which needs to be considered is as to whether the present Commission is the appropriate forum for adjudicating on the dispute raised and for redressal of the grievance of the complainant in the present complaint and for the grant of reliefs prayed by it. In other words, the question is as to whether the complainant is well within its rights to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Commission vested in it under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, 'the Act'). Answer to this would depend on the question as to whether the complainant can be said to be a 'consumer' within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act as it stands after its amendment by the Amending Act 62 of 2002 effective from 15.03.2003. There cannot be any denial of the legal position that complainant in the present case would have certainly qualified to be a 'consumer' under the Act as it stood prior to amendment. However the Amending Act has brought a sea change in the definition of 'consumer' by incorporating the phrase 'but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose' in sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. This clause unambiguously points out that any person who avails of services for any commercial purpose can no longer be treated as consumer. We must, therefore, examine the next question as to whether the complainant has availed the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose or otherwise. Taking the averments and allegations made by the complainant for the deficiency on the part of the opposite party as alleged in connection with an irrevocable letter of credit established at the said bank for ensuring the payment of the five transformers sold by the complainant to certain purchasers in the state of Haryana for a sum of Rs.2,29,79,166/- on their face value, it cannot be denied that complainant had availed the services of the opposite party-bank for purely commercial purpose in furtherance of their business etc.