Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V.R. Krishnakumar, a proprietor of Central Processor Global Inc. Slofter, maintained a current account with American Express Bank Limited. The bank allegedly promised mercantile banking services and a Letter of Credit facility for his export business. When the bank failed to respond to his request for a Letter of Credit, he approached the Banking Ombudsman without success. Subsequently, he filed a consumer complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which rejected the complaint on merits on 20.11.2018. Dissatisfied, he preferred First Appeal No.112 of 2009 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The National Commission, by order dated 24.07.2018, dismissed the appeal, confirming that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the banking services were availed for commercial purposes. The petitioner filed review applications before the National Commission, which remained pending. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the National Commission to review its orders in light of alleged statutory violations under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and pending review applications. He contended that interim orders passed by the National Commission were not complied with by the bank. The High Court observed that all interim orders merged with the final order dated 24.07.2018, and therefore no separate enforcement could be sought. The court noted that the petitioner's complaint was fundamentally about a commercial transaction, and he did not satisfy the definition of 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. Since the petitioner had chosen a wrong forum, the High Court could not adjudicate the dispute on merits under its writ jurisdiction. However, considering the protracted litigation and the petitioner's efforts, the court granted him liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal. The court directed that if such a forum is approached, it shall entertain the petition without reference to any delay, as the petitioner had been agitating the matter all along before the consumer fora. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Definition of Consumer - Commercial Purpose Exclusion - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) - The petitioner, a proprietary concern, availed banking services for export business, including Letter of Credit facility; the National Commission held that such services were for commercial purpose, not exclusively for self-employment; thus, the petitioner did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' - High Court concurred that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act (Paras 4-5, 7). B) Civil Procedure - Merger of Interim Orders - Doctrine of Merger - The petitioner sought compliance of interim orders passed by the National Commission; however, all interim orders merged with the final order dated 24.07.2018 dismissing the appeal; therefore, no independent relief could be granted (Para 3). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Where the petitioner had chosen a wrong forum and the consumer complaint was dismissed as not maintainable, the High Court under Article 226 could not entertain the matter on merits; however, considering the petitioner's prolonged litigation, liberty was granted to approach the competent forum without reference to delay, and the competent forum was directed to entertain the petition without raising limitation issues (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to review its orders on grounds of alleged statutory violations and pending review applications, when the petitioner's consumer complaint had been dismissed as not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for availing banking services for commercial purpose.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach competent forum for redressal; such forum to entertain petition without reference to delay; no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Interim orders merge with final order under doctrine of merger
- Commercial purpose exclusion from definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Maintainability of complaint before consumer fora depends on whether service availed exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate merits when complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act
- Liberty to approach competent forum without bar of limitation when litigant has been prosecuting matter before wrong forum for long period
