ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. SUSHIL GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.03.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Case No. C-68/1998 Sushil Gulati Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce by which, complaint was partly allowed and complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was proprietor of M/s. Tekline Communications and was having dealing with Punjab Co-Operative Bank Ltd. which has been now overtaken by OP/petitioner. In the year 1995, complainant was advanced a cash credit limit of Rs.3,00,000/- by the erstwhile Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. against pledge of batteries worth Rs.3,75,000/- and complainant's wife stood as surety. Complainant was operating account regularly till 1996, but later on moratorium was placed for a period of seven months from 30.9.1996 to 01.4.1997 by Reserve Bank of India. OP allowed operation of account for the first time on 30.5.1997when two batteries were delivered against payment. On delivery, complainant found that batteries were laying in bad shape and in damaged condition. On random counting there was shortage in total number of batteries pledged. It was further alleged that on 30.8.1997 complainant took delivery of 16 batteries against payment which technically perished due to non-charging. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP called upon the complainant to regularize his account, but he failed to do so and upto 30.11.1998, complainant was liable to pay Rs.2,78,862.86 as the principal amount and Rs.1,60,899/- as interest. It was further submitted that batteries lying in the store were totally handled by complainant. Civil suit was pending between the parties and complainant does not fall within purview of consumer as transactions were for commercial purposes and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint as aforesaid against which this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and perused record.