Recently, the Supreme Court held that mere earning of interest on bank deposits does not by itself render the transaction a commercial purpose under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, while simultaneously affirming that disputes involving allegations of fraud fall outside the scope of consumer jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the true test lies in the dominant purpose of the transaction, cautioning that consumer fora are not equipped to adjudicate complex factual controversies involving fraud and forgery.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a fixed deposit of ₹9 crore made by the Appellant, a State undertaking with Vijaya Bank, evidenced by a Fixed Deposit Receipt. Shortly thereafter, the Appellant discovered that an overdraft facility of ₹8.10 crore had allegedly been sanctioned against the FDR without its authorization. The Appellant lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing and sought reversal of the transaction. However, the bank proceeded to adjust the maturity amount of the FDR towards the alleged overdraft liability, remitting only ₹50.58 lakh to the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging a deficiency in service. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the transaction was for a commercial purpose and thus outside the purview of consumer jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that depositing surplus funds in a bank does not automatically constitute a commercial activity, as such deposits may be made for safe custody or statutory compliance rather than profit generation. The Counsel argued that earning interest is merely incidental and does not establish a direct nexus with commercial activity. The Appellant further submitted that even a corporate entity can qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the NCDRC erred in mechanically treating the transaction as profit-oriented. The Appellant also emphasised that the alleged overdraft against the FDR was fraudulent and unauthorised, constituting a clear deficiency in banking services.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent bank argued that the deposit was made with the intent of profit augmentation and was intrinsically linked to commercial activity. The Counsel maintained that the FDR had been pledged to secure an overdraft facility, thereby establishing a direct nexus with business operations. Additionally, the bank contended that the dispute involved serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and manipulation, which could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and required examination before a civil or criminal court.
Observation of the Court:
The Court, while examining the concept of “commercial purpose” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, reaffirmed that no rigid formula can be applied and that each case must be assessed on its own facts. It emphasised the “dominant purpose test,” observing that “what needs to be seen is the dominant intention or dominant purpose of the transaction i.e. whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit generation.”
The Court clarified that banking services such as accepting deposits and paying interest are fundamental functions and cannot automatically be classified as commercial merely because interest accrues. It observed that “merely because a fixed deposit receipt earns interest does not mean that the banking service availed is for a commercial purpose,” highlighting that deposits may be made for reasons unrelated to profit, including safety or statutory compliance.
However, the Court drew a critical distinction where deposits are used to leverage credit facilities or support business operations. In such scenarios, the transaction may acquire a commercial character due to its direct nexus with profit generation. The Bench noted that the present case involved a disputed claim of pledge of the FDR for an overdraft facility, thereby raising serious questions about the true nature and intent of the transaction.
On the second issue, the Court held that consumer proceedings are summary in nature and are ill-suited to adjudicate complex disputes involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal misconduct. It observed that where the dispute hinges on contested facts requiring detailed evidence, such matters must be adjudicated in appropriate civil or criminal forums. The Court emphasised that “complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or… criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided” under the Consumer Protection framework.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the complaint, albeit on different reasoning. The Court clarified that while mere earning of interest on bank deposits does not constitute a commercial purpose, disputes involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and unauthorized financial transactions fall outside the jurisdiction of consumer fora.
Case Title.: Sant Rohidas Leather Industries And Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Vijaya Bank
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.4841 Of 2023
Coram: Honble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Honble Justice Manoj Misr
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. T. R. B. Sivakumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Amrendra Kumar Mehta
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
