SC clarifies on when you are NOT consumer of a bank

A person availing the services of a bank for 'commercial purpose' is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court stated that to come within the ambit of the consumer, a person will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self­ employment.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said there cannot be any straitjacket formula and such a question will have to be decided in the facts of each case, depending upon the evidence placed on record.

“When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self­ employment,” the bench said.

The apex court said the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 clearly shows that the legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the said Act.

It said that at the same time, the intent of the Act is also to give benefit to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self­ employment.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by Shrikant G Mantri Ghar challenging the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The NCDRC had held that the complainant was not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainant, a stock broker, had filed a complaint against Punjab National Bank which had granted him overdraft facility.

The apex court said the relations between the appellant and the respondent is purely “business to business” relationship.

As such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of 'commercial purpose', the bench said in its judgement delivered on Tuesday.

It cannot be said that the services were availed “exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood” “by means of self­ employment”.

“If the interpretation as sought to be placed by the appellant is to be accepted, then the 'business to business' disputes would also have to be construed as consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes.

“We, therefore, find no error with the findings of the Commission.

"In any case, the Commission has already granted liberty to the appellant to avail of his remedy by approaching the appropriate forum, having jurisdiction. In the result, the appeal is dismissed,” the bench said.