NG TECHNOLOGY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 9/5/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 12 of 2015 inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 9/5/2017 of the State Commission.

(2.) While the Appellant was Complainant, Respondents were Opposite Parties in the said CC No. 13 of 2015 before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 1/12/2017. Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 5/12/2022 and 19/5/2023 respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that Complainant is engaged in business of Software and Website Development and Services and same is only source of his livelihood. Complainant submitted an application with Respondent No.1 to open a Corporate Current Account but respondent no.1 instead of opening a Corporate Current Account, opened a Retail Current Account having account no. 182900210024317. For running the business, complainant required Corporate internet Banking, ATM Card and Credit Card from the Respondents. When the complainant applied for Corporate Current Account on 21/5/2012, he was given assurance that all the facilities will be made available but immediately thereafter ATM Debit Card No. 5126520146449058 which was issued to the complainant after having opened the account, it was taken back on 26/6/2012 on the pretext that since Complainant is a partnership firm, facility of ATM card cannot be made available to the complainant. Even, the facilities like Credit Card, Corporate Internet Banking and RTGS were not provided to the Complainant. Being aggrieved of the said act of the Respondents, Complainant filed a CC before the State Commission. The Opposite Parties moved an application dtd. 21/4/2016 for dismissal of the CC stating therein that complainant is a partnership firm and, therefore, does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' and having a current account for commercial purpose. The Complainant filed objections dtd. 9/5/2016 against the application dtd. 21/4/2016 moved by the opposite parties stating therein that it is a consumer and denied that partnership firm is doing the work for commercial purpose. The State Commission decided the application dtd. 21/4/2016 moved by the opposite parties, and held that complainant is not a consumer and dismissed the CC on this ground alone. Hence the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present FA.