Subhash Motilal Shah v. Malegaon Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd.

ORDER

JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. Subhash Motilal Shah, Petitioner No.1/Complainant No.1, and subsequently represented by his LRs, Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, Rainbow Corporation, Petitioner No.6/Complainant No.2, and Rainbow Agency, Petitioner No.7/Complainant No.3, filed a complaint against Malegaon Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., OP, before the District Forum. The complaint was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the complainants was also dismissed. Both the foras below came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not onsumers since the transaction in question relates to ommercial one 2. It was alleged that the respondent Bank was deficient in service as they honoured various cheques, which according to the complainants were cheques, not issued by the account holder, and the signatures of operating persons were forged. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission was pleased to hold :- dmittedly, since Rainbow Corporation is a firm of Ajay Subhash Shah (HUF), i.e., jurisdic person, there arise no question of self-employment so as to cover the case under explanation to section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (ctfor brevity). It is a case relating to an action related with services given while operating the Current Account of Appellant Rainbow Corporation which was admittedly opened and used for business purpose, of the business of ommission agentand business of arn sale Therefore, since the account itself is connected and related to the business transactions and such banking activity is required for the functioning of a given business enterprise of the appellant/complainant, services hired for that purpose would fall within the category of hiring services for commercial purpose. A useful reference can be made to free dictionary by FARLEX (on Internet) which defines the usiness Activityas the activity undertaken as a part of commercial enterprise. Further, reference can be made to an article available on the internet Website Wise Geek (copyright protected 2003-12 by Conjecture Corporation) and which is written by Alexis. W, edited by Heater Bailey. Under the circumstances, prima facie appellant/complainant Rainbow Corporation cannot be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the view taken by the State Commission is erroneous, because, even ommercial transactioncan be taken into consideration. He has cited a Supreme Court authority in support of his case which is reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, wherein it was held that the combined reading of the definitions of onsumerand erviceunder the Act and looking at the aims and object for which the Act was enacted, it is imperative that the words onsumerand erviceas defined under the Act should be construed to comprehend consumer and services of commercial and trade-oriented nature only. Thus any person who is found to have hired services for consideration shall be deemed to be a consumer notwithstanding that the services were in connection with any goods or their user. Such services may be for any connected commercial activity and may also relate to the services as indicated in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. 5. As a matter of fact, there was amendment in the Act. By the Act No.62 of 2002, w.e.f. 15.03.2003, the said Amendment, runs as follows:- Section 2(d)(ii) : hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of

2