Sant Rohidas Leather Industries vs Vijaya Bank - Consumer Protection

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 9, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India

Sant Rohidas Leather Industries And ... vs Vijaya Bank on 19 March, 2026

Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

2026 INSC 264 REPORTABLE

                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.4841 OF 2023

               SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES
               AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT
               CORPORATION LTD.
                                                                        …APPELLANT (S)

                                                              VERSUS

               VIJAYA BANK                                             …RESPONDENT (S)

                                                         JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This statutory appeal arises from a judgment and order

                       of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
   
                       at New Delhi1, dated 13.03.2023, in Consumer Complaint
   
                       No. 2866 of 2017, whereby the consumer complaint of the
   
                       appellant was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2026.03.19 15:46:04 IST Reason: 1 NCDRC Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023                  Page 1 of 26 complainant (i.e., the appellant herein) is not a consumer as
   

   per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862.

   FACTS

2. The appellant, a company incorporated, filed a

   consumer complaint against Vijaya Bank3 (the respondent),

   inter alia, alleging that it had invested a sum of Rs.

   9,00,00,000 (Rs.9 Crores), by way of a fixed deposit, with the

   Bank, for a period of one year, w.e.f. 28.02.2014, and

   evidencing the transaction a fixed deposit receipt4 dated

   03.03.2014 was issued to the appellant and even interest

   payable on the said FDR was credited in the account of the

   appellant on 26.03.2014 after deducting TDS5. However, on

   27.06.2014, the appellant received a letter from the Bank

   about sanction of a loan/credit facility/ overdraft of Rs. 8.10

   Crores against the FDR. Suspecting foul play in sanction of

   loan/ credit facility/ overdraft against the FDR, the

   appellant lodged a complaint with the Economic Offences

   Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai on 16.07.2014. A letter was

   also sent to the Bank to reverse the entries qua the 2 1986 Act 3 Bank 4 FDR 5 Tax Deducted at Source Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 2 of 26 fraudulent overdraft account. The Bank, however, did not

   accede to the request. As a result, the matter was reported

   to the Reserve Bank of India6. Subsequently, on 04.03.2017,

   the Bank informed the appellant that the overdraft facility

   has been closed by adjusting the amount outstanding

   thereunder against maturity value of the FDR and the

   remaining balance i.e., Rs. 50,58,847 was remitted vide DD

   No. 245983, dated 04.03.2017. The appellant accepted

   neither adjustment nor remission and requested the Bank to

   make payment of the entire FDR amount. As the Bank failed

   to refund the amount, consumer complaint was filed with a

   prayer that the Bank be directed to pay the principal

   amount of Rs. 9 Crores along with interest at the rate of

   9.75% per annum from 28.02.2014 along with compensation

   as well as costs.

3.   The Bank contested the complaint on merits as well
   

   on its maintainability, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) The allegations of fraud/forgery etc. can be
decided by either a Civil Court or a Criminal 6 RBI Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 3 of 26 Court and not in summary proceedings under
the 1986 Act; and

(b) The complainant company is engaged in
commercial activity; the alleged investment
was to augment profits, therefore, the
complainant is not a consumer as defined in
Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
4. NCDRC by placing reliance on the definition of

‘consumer’, as defined in Section 2(1)(d)7 of the 1986 Act, as

also on a decision of this Court in [Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta

Medical Trust vs Unique Shanti Developers](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58958971/) and others8

held that the deposit made by the appellant with the Bank

had a direct nexus to generation of profit(s) (i.e., earning

interest on surplus funds), therefore, the banking services

availed        were        for     a     commercial              purpose.          Hence,          the 7 Section 2(1)(d) - “Consumer” means any person who, —

(i) buys any goods 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 user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or
partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use
is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains
such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(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 deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the
first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any
commercial purpose;

[Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose" does not include use by a
person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes
of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment]; 8 (2020) 2 SCC 265 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 4 of 26 complainant would not be a consumer qua the Bank as per

Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. In consequence, NCDRC

dismissed the complaint without expressing any opinion on

its merit.

1. Aggrieved by rejection of its complaint, the appellant

has filed this appeal.

1. We have learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the materials available on record.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted:

(a) Appellant is an undertaking of State of
Maharashtra. It availed services of the
Bank. As there has been deficiency in
service, complaint against the Bank was
maintainable.

(b) Deposit in a Bank by itself is not reflective
of a commercial purpose. Every legal
person parks its money or funds in a Bank.
Therefore, deposit in a Bank by itself
should not be a determining factor to hold
that banking services availed by the
depositor were for a commercial purpose.

Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 5 of 26 Moreover, parking of surplus funds in a
Bank does not by itself amounts to a
commercial activity. It may merely be an
investment. Therefore, the view taken by
NCDRC that the appellant is not a
consumer is unsustainable in law.

(c) Moreover, there is no direct nexus between
the services availed and generation of profit
by the appellant because the principal
object of the appellant is to arrange and
supply raw materials to specified
industries.

(d) Besides, even a company can be a
consumer. Therefore, merely because
appellant is a company incorporated it would not be a factor determining whether
it is a consumer or not.

1. In light of the above submissions, the learned counsel

for the appellant prayed that the impugned order be set

aside and the matter be remanded back to NCDRC for a

decision on merits.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-BANK

1. Per contra, on behalf of the Bank, it was urged that

though main object of the appellant may be to promote the Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 6 of 26 leather industry, etc., but it is not precluded from investing

money, not immediately required by the company, for

profits. Thus, the purpose of such investment was to

augment profits and, therefore, banking services were

availed for a commercial purpose. NCDRC was, therefore,

justified in holding the appellant not a consumer as per

Section 2(1) (d) of the 1986 Act.

1. Additionally, it was submitted on behalf of the Bank

that there exists a serious dispute on facts and the

allegations in the complaint relating to fraud/ forgery/

manipulation can only be decided in a regular civil or

criminal proceeding and not by way of a summary

proceeding under the 1986 Act.

ISSUES

1. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the

materials placed on record, in our view, the following issues

arise for our consideration:

(i) Whether the appellant, a body corporate,
while availing services of the Bank to deposit its
surplus funds in an interest bearing term Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 7 of 26 deposit, such as an FDR, could be considered a
consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the
1986 Act?

(ii) Whether the nature of allegations made
in the complaint were such that they took the
claim outside the purview of proceedings under
the 1986 Act?
ISSUE NO.(i)

1. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the 1986 Act, inter-alia, provides

that “consumer” means any person who 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 deferred

payment, when such services are availed of with the

approval of the first mentioned person but does not include

a person who avails of such services for any commercial

purpose. The Explanation to clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 2 of the 1986 Act provides that for the purposes of

this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 8 of 26 person of goods bought and used by him and services

availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his

livelihood by means of self-employment.

1.       The expression ‘person” used in Section 2(1) (d) is
   

   defined in Section 2(1)(m)9 of the 1986 Act. Construing the

   definition of ‘person’ as provided in Section 2(1)(m) of the

   1986 Act, this Court in [Karnataka Power Transmission

   Corporation & Another v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171150858/) held that the definition of person is inclusive and not

   exhaustive and it would include a body corporate.

2. In Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (supra),

   this Court observed that there could be no straitjacket

   formula for determining whether an activity or transaction is

   for a commercial purpose. Yet, by way of guidelines, certain

   principles were summarised in paragraph 19 of the

   judgment, which is reproduced below:

9

Section 2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(m) ‘person’ includes, -

(i) a firm whether registered or not;

(ii) a Hindu undivided family;

(iii) a co-operative society;

(iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (21 of 1860) or not 10 (2009) 3 SCC 240, paragraph 21 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 9 of 26 “19. To summarize from the above discussion,
though a straightjacket formula cannot be adopted
in every case, the following broad principles can be
culled out for determining whether an activity or
transaction is “for a commercial purpose.”

19.1 The question of whether a transaction is for a
commercial purpose would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily,
“commercial purpose” is understood to include
manufacturing/ industrial activity or business-to-
business transactions between commercial entities.

       19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have
       a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating
       activity.

19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase
or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the
question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It
has to be seen whether the dominant intention or
dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate
some kind of profit generation for the purchaser
and/or their beneficiary.

19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind
purchasing the good or service was for the personal
use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their
beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any
commercial activity, the question of whether such a
purchase was for the purpose of ‘generating livelihood
by means of self-employment’ need not be looked
into.” Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 10 of 26

1.      What is clear from above is that the identity of the
   

   person making the purchase, or the value of the transaction,

   is not conclusive to determine whether the transaction or

   activity is for a commercial purpose. 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 for the purchaser(s) and/or its/their beneficiary.

   If it is found that the dominant purpose behind the

   purchase of goods or services is personal use and

   consumption by the purchaser, and those are otherwise not

   linked to any commercial activity, the question whether such

   purchase is for generating a livelihood by means of self-

   employment need not be addressed. However, where the

   transaction is for a commercial purpose, it may have to be

   considered whether it is for generating livelihood by means

   of self-employment or not.

2. In [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia

   Motors & Ors.11](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19498549/), the complainant, a commercial entity

   engaged in the business of sale of vehicles, took fire

   insurance policy from an insurance company, covering its 11 (2023) 8 SCC 362 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 11 of 26 office, showroom, garage, machinery lying in the showroom

premises, etc. The complainant's case was that damages

were sustained during Godhra riots and, therefore, the

complainant was entitled to be indemnified under the policy

of insurance. Aggrieved by action of the insurance company

a complaint was filed by claiming deficiency in service. The

insurance company took an objection that the complainant

was not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act

because its ultimate object is to earn profits. The State

Commission upheld the objection; against which, the

complainant went in appeal before NCDRC. NCDRC held

that the expression “for any commercial purpose” would

mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be

used in any activity directly intended to generate profit, but

in a case where goods purchased or services availed are not

intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial

purpose. Consequently, when a person takes an insurance

cover for indemnification of actual loss suffered, the

intention is not to generate profits. Therefore, the

complainant was a consumer. Upholding the above view of

the National Commission, this Court observed: Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 12 of 26

“43. … What needs to be determined is whether the
insurance service had a close and direct nexus with the
profit generating activity and whether the dominant
intention or dominant purpose of the transaction was to
facilitate some kind of profit generation for the insured or
to the beneficiary and our answer is in the negative and
accordingly we are of the view that the complaint filed by
the respondent insured herein has no close or direct
nexus with the profit generating activity and the claim of
insurance is to indemnify the loss which the respondent
insured had suffered and the Commission has rightly
held that the respondent is a consumer under section
2(1)(d) of the 1986.

1. We further reiterate that ordinarily the nature of the insurance contract is always to indemnify the losses. Insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss / damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event and is applicable only to some contingency or act likely to come in future.”

1. In [Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies (Pvt)

   Ltd.12](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153936219/), after considering several decisions including

   Harsolia Motors, it was observed that if the transaction has

   a direct nexus with generation of profits, it would be treated

   as one for a commercial purpose. However, whether a

   transaction has nexus with generation of profits or not is to

   be determined on the facts of each case by taking into 12 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2443 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 13 of 26 consideration, inter alia, the nature of the goods purchased

or services availed and the purpose for which it is purchased

or availed and if, upon consideration of all relevant factors,

the picture that emerges is one which reflects that the object

of the purchase of goods/services is to generate or augment

profit, the same would be treated as one for a commercial

purpose. It was also observed that insurance service by its

very nature is to secure the insured against an unforeseen

loss, therefore, the dominant object of availing such service

is not to generate profit but to secure oneself against

unforeseen losses.

1. Thus, what is clear from above is that to determine

whether the purchasing of goods, or availing of services, is

for a commercial purpose or not, one has to look at the

dominant object or purpose with which those goods are

purchased or services are availed. To ascertain the dominant

object, nature of the goods purchased or the services availed

also assume importance. Therefore, each case would have to

be decided on its own facts. What is also clear is that the

status of the purchaser or recipient of goods or services, that

is, whether it is an individual or a body corporate, is not the Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 14 of 26 determining factor for holding whether the transaction is, or

  is not, for a commercial purpose.

1.      Besides, the burden to prove that the goods
   

   purchased, or services availed, as the case may be, is for a

   commercial purpose is on the respondent and not the

   complainant. In [Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited v.

   Raghachand Associates13](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86085531/), after analysing the definition of

   “consumer”, this Court observed that the definition has

   three parts. The first part relates to buying of goods/

   availing of service for a consideration. Burden of proving the

   same rests on the complainant. The second part relates to

   the exception, that is, whether those goods were bought, or

   services availed, for a commercial purpose. The burden of

   proving this part lies on the respondent. The third part

   relates to the explanation, that is, even though the goods

   purchased, or services availed, are for a commercial

   purpose, the same are for the purpose of earning

   complainant’s livelihood, by way of self-employment. The

   burden of proving the third part lies on the complainant. 13 (2024) 9 SCC 509 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 15 of 26

2.       In the instant case, the transaction out of which
   

the complaint arises is regarding a deposit made by the

appellant with the Bank. Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act

defines ‘service’. It means service of any description which is

made available to potential users and includes the provision

of facilities in connection with banking, finance, insurance

etc. There is no dispute that such deposit was made and the

Bank had agreed to pay interest. Thus, to that extent the

respondent-bank is the service provider and the appellant a

service recipient qua Bank’s contractual obligation to pay

interest and maturity value of the FDR. Therefore, in that

context, the appellant can be considered a consumer of

banking services offered by the respondent. However, the

moot question is whether there was any deficiency in

rendering those services. If yes, whether those services were

availed for a commercial purpose. Both the issues are

interlinked because if the Bank’s defence that the FDR was

pledged for availing credit facility is accepted, not only a

commercial purpose gets imputed to the transaction but

then there may be no deficiency in rendering service qua the Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 16 of 26 FDR as it would be subject to a subsequent contract of

pledge.

1. A bank renders multiple types of service. Accepting

cash deposits from customers and paying interest thereon is

the most basic of services rendered by a bank, as ordinally

all cash deposits yield interest. Therefore, merely because a

deposit earns interest, it does not mean that the deposit was

made for a commercial purpose because there may be other

reasons to deposit the money in a bank and those may have

nothing to do with generation of profit. For example, holding

of cash by a person beyond a limit may not be permissible

under the statutory framework. Therefore, he may have to

deposit the money notwithstanding whether his intention is

to earn profits. Besides, banking service may be utilized for

safe-keeping of money as keeping cash is fraught with risk.

Thus, merely because a fixed deposit receipt earns interest

does not mean that the banking service availed is for a

commercial purpose. To this extent, we do not agree with the

view of NCDRC.

Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 17 of 26

1. However, if the deposit is made to leverage credit

facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct

nexus with revenue generation/ profits. In such a case, it

could be said that the banking service was availed for a

commercial purpose. In that scenario, the service recipient

may not fall in the category of a consumer unless he brings

his case within the four corners of the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

1. It is undisputed that the appellant is a body

corporate. Though being a body corporate is not the

determining factor of a service recipient’s intent to generate

profit, yet it is a factor to be considered along with others to

ascertain the true intent with which the service in question

was availed.

1. In the instant case, according to the complainant,

the deposit was for a fixed term and had no direct nexus to

the core business of the complainant i.e., the appellant.

Though, according to the Bank, the deposit was to generate

profit as the FDR not only carried interest, it was pledged to Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 18 of 26 avail credit facilities/ overdraft for business use and,

therefore it served a commercial purpose.

1. The complaint allegations, if read as a whole, would

reveal that the complainant (i.e., the appellant) was aware

about Bank’s stand that the FDR was pledged to avail credit

facilities. If that is correct then it is a matter of common

knowledge that credit facilities are availed by a corporate

body for its business. Therefore, there existed a serious

dispute regarding the true intent of the appellant in making

such deposit.

1. In normal course, parking of surplus funds by a

body corporate with a bank, either for safe custody or to

comply with statutory mandate, as the case may be, is not

reflective of a commercial purpose. More so, because

ordinarily all deposits in a Bank earn interest. Hence, it

would be too naive to hold that since the deposit earned

interest, banking service was availed for a commercial

purpose. However, it would be different where deposits are

made to leverage a credit facility, or for availing other

banking services, for business use. Deposit of the latter kind Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 19 of 26 may amount to availing banking services for a commercial

purpose.

1. In the case on hand, the deposit was by one

business entity, namely, the appellant company, with

another business entity, namely, the Bank. It was thus, a

business-to-business transaction. Admittedly, the Bank had

set up a case that FDR was pledged to avail credit facility

and the maturity value of the FDR was adjusted against the

dues. Though the appellant has denied this loan

transaction, this issue is not settled by either a criminal

court or a civil court even though a criminal complaint has

been made in that regard. In such circumstances, it is not a

simple case of not fulfilling contractual obligation qua the

deposit but a case where a subsequent contract of pledge is

set up which, if accepted, would override the contractual

obligation under the FDR. Thus, without determining

whether there was fraud played upon the appellant, or

forged documents were created for a false pledge /loan, it

would not be possible to determine whether the services

availed by the appellant from the respondent-Bank were for Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 20 of 26 a commercial purpose or not. Issue No.(i) is decided

  accordingly.

ISSUE NO.(ii)

1. In [Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch

   Airlines and Another14](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/564766/) this Court had the occasion to

   construe the words ‘service’, as defined in Section 2(1)(o),

   and ‘deficiency’, as defined in Section 2(1) (g) of the 1986

   Act. After considering their respective definitions provided

   in the 1986 Act, it was held:

“5. Section 2(1)(o) defines “service” to mean service of any
description which is made available to potential users
and includes the provision of facilities in connection with
banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing,
supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or
both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of
news or other information, but does not include the
rendering of any service free of charge or under a
contract of personal service. Section 2(1)(g) defines
“deficiency” to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming
or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of
performance which is required to be maintained by or
under any law for the time being in force or has been
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of
a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
14
(2000) 1 SCC 66 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 21 of 26

1. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 22 of 26 rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.”

                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

1.      Following the decision in [Ravneet Singh Bagga](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/564766/) (supra) in [Chairman and Managing Director, City Union
   

   Bank Limited and Another v. R. Chandramohan15](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1526409/), it was

   held:

“14. The proceedings before the Commission being
summary in nature, the complaints involving highly
disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious
acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be
decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.
The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be
distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts.”

(Emphasis supplied)
30. It is thus settled that the burden to prove deficiency

  in service is on the complainant, and deficiency in service is

  different from criminal or tortious acts of the service

  provider. Though one of the objects of the 1986 Act is to

  provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes,

  its object is not to deal with complex factual issues 15 (2023) 7 SCC 775 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023                                          Page 23 of 26 pertaining to criminal or tortious liability in a summary

manner.

1. In light of the aforesaid legal position, we shall now

consider whether the allegations set out in the complaint,

took the complaint out of the purview of the 1986 Act.

1. According to the complaint allegations, the

appellant had invested 9 crores by way of a term deposit

with the Bank. It is also the case of the appellant that the

said term deposit was fraudulently hypothecated for availing

overdraft without the sanction of the appellant company.

What is important to note is that when the overdraft against

the FDR was brought to the notice of the appellant, a

complaint was made with the respondent-bank. The

response of the Bank to that complaint is important,

inasmuch as the Bank claims that the original of the FDR is

with the Bank and the same stands pledged for availing

overdraft. Besides, the Bank claimed that the FDR which the

appellant claims to be in its possession is a forged

document. In the complaint itself, the appellant admitted

that this matter was reported to the Economic Offences Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 24 of 26 Wing. Therefore, the main grievance of the appellant

appears to be qua adjustment of proceeds of the FDR

against the amount outstanding in the overdraft account.

Thus, what is clear from the complaint allegations is that

the Bank had acknowledged the FDR and had accounted for

the interest payable thereon but, instead of releasing the

maturity proceeds in favour of the appellant, it had set up a

subsequent contract of pledge of that FDR for according

overdraft facility to the appellant. According to the appellant

this pledge is a fraudulent act and amounts to an offence. In

such circumstances, the complaint allegations as they stand

cannot be adjudicated upon in a proceeding under the 1986

Act as those allegations could appropriately be addressed in

a regular criminal or civil proceeding. Hence, the complaint

as framed is not maintainable. Issue No.(ii) is decided in the

aforesaid terms.

1. In light of our conclusion on Issue No.(ii), we are of

the view that NCDRC was justified in dismissing the

complaint even though the reasons recorded by it for such

dismissal may not be entirely correct. As a result, the

appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Dismissal Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 25 of 26 of the complaint shall not be a bar on the right of the

appellant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings before

appropriate court/ forum. There shall be no order as to

costs.

1. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

….………….......................................J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

                            ……………......................................J.
                           (MANOJ MISRA)

New Delhi;

March 19, 2026 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2023 Page 26 of 26