CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB (1) Federal Bank National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (2) Federal Bank National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, As common questions of petitions, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. For reference, facts are being taken from CWP 2. The petitioner (Annexure P Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred Commission’) and CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND Reserved on 10.07.2025 Date of decision: CWP No.1138 of 2025 (O&M) Bank Ltd. versus National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission AND CWP No.11 Bank Ltd. versus National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Shubham Pabbi, Advocate, for the petitioner **** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. For reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.1138 of 2025. The petitioner-Bank has impugned (Annexure P-10) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred Commission’) and the order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 10.07.2025 Date of decision: 30.09.2025 CWP No.1138 of 2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ... Respondents CWP No.1141 of 2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others ... Respondents ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA Shubham Pabbi, Advocate, for the petitioner. law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. For reference, of 2025. has impugned the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’), 9) passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-8) passed by the -1- HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1138 of 2025 (O&M) Petitioner ... Respondents of 2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ... Respondents law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. For reference, order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal as ‘the National Commission’), State Consumer to as ‘the State 8) passed by the RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 has been allowed and the appeal 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank had performed its obligation as per the instructions of respondent No.2 and delivered the bills to the foreign Bancorp, which without payment. presenting Bank omission or negligence attributed to the Rules for Collection compensate for the negligence on the part of the presenting submits that the complaint against the petitioner respondent No.2 is not a consumer because the exclusively availed for the purposes of earning employment. erroneously hel 4. Heard. R business under the name and style of M/s V.K. Tex with the petitioner as the Banks of the importer. The petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 in December, 2011. He had exported textiles throu amounting to CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 has owed and the appeal and the revision Learned counsel for the petitioner had performed its obligation as per the instructions of respondent No.2 and delivered the bills to the foreign Bank for collection. It was the foreign ich did not comply with the instructions and released the documents without payment. The petitioner-Bank is merely a remitting Bank. The responsibility of the petitioner omission or negligence, if any, on the part of the presenting attributed to the petitioner-Bank. The International Chamber of Commerce ( ollections contemplate that the remitting compensate for the negligence on the part of the presenting submits that the complaint against the petitioner respondent No.2 is not a consumer because the exclusively availed for the purposes of earning employment. He, therefore, submits that the Commissions/Forum have erroneously held the petitioner-Bank liable for the loss caused to respondent No.2. Heard. Respondent No.2 is stated to under the name and style of M/s V.K. Tex with the petitioner- Bank. He was exporting textiles through s of the importer. The petitioner- No.2. Respondent No.2 received an overseas export order from in December, 2011. He had exported textiles throu amounting to US $15202.65 and the petitioner CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 has and the revision there-against, have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that the petitioner had performed its obligation as per the instructions of respondent No.2 and for collection. It was the foreign Bank did not comply with the instructions and released the documents is merely a remitting Bank and not the he responsibility of the petitioner-Bank is very limited and on the part of the presenting Bank cannot International Chamber of Commerce (ICC contemplate that the remitting Bank cannot be made to compensate for the negligence on the part of the presenting Bank. He further submits that the complaint against the petitioner-Bank was not maintainable, as respondent No.2 is not a consumer because their services had not been exclusively availed for the purposes of earning a livelihood by means of self He, therefore, submits that the Commissions/Forum have liable for the loss caused to respondent No.2. espondent No.2 is stated to have been running a textile under the name and style of M/s V.K. Tex and had a current account exporting textiles through his Bankers as well -Bank acts as an agent of respondent an overseas export order from respondent No.3 in December, 2011. He had exported textiles through various shipments and the petitioner-Bank being his authorized agent -2- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 has have been dismissed. submits that the petitioner- had performed its obligation as per the instructions of respondent No.2 and Bank-US did not comply with the instructions and released the documents and not the is very limited and the cannot be ICC) cannot be made to He further was not maintainable, as had not been livelihood by means of self- He, therefore, submits that the Commissions/Forum have liable for the loss caused to respondent No.2. textile current account ers as well acts as an agent of respondent respondent No.3 shipments authorized agent RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 was instructed through overseas export proceeds and No.2/exporter and documents. The exports certain documents which were exchanged by the authorised of the export proceeds counterpart Bank pertaining to payment of US $15202.65 as per the invoice. approached the petitioner grievance was not redressed by the officials of the petitioner have preferred a consumer complaint before the District Forum allowed and the order has been upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 5. It is evident that the petitioner consignment to the importer without proper authorization and the same indicates that there was gross negligence on its part. The petitioner respondent No.2 had failed to carry out its duties properly. Respondent No.2 had specifically instructed the petitioner made only again which the petitioner with the foreign Bank only through the petitioner documents containing the payment terms, th through the remitting Bank (i.e. the petitioner payment. If the importer refuses to make the payment, the exporter has the option CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 was instructed through a covering letter that it had full authority overseas export proceeds and the payments transmitted between /exporter and the consignee of goods, documents. The exports and the payments w certain documents which were exchanged by the authorised of the export proceeds was to be made by the petitioner Bank. The petitioner-Bank is stated to have released the documents pertaining to the exported goods to respondent No.3 payment of US $15202.65 as per the invoice. approached the petitioner-Bank for payment in grievance was not redressed by the officials of the petitioner have preferred a consumer complaint before the District Forum allowed and the order has been upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal It is evident that the petitioner consignment to the importer without proper authorization and the same indicates there was gross negligence on its part. The petitioner respondent No.2 had failed to carry out its duties properly. Respondent No.2 had specifically instructed the petitioner-Bank that delivery of documents was to be made only against payment. Indubitably, US Bancorp is a foreign Bank with which the petitioner-Bank had arrangements and respondent No.2 was dealing with the foreign Bank only through the petitioner documents containing the payment terms, th through the remitting Bank (i.e. the petitioner payment. If the importer refuses to make the payment, the exporter has the option CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 that it had full authority to collect payments transmitted between respondent against the delivery of the export were to be secured by preparation of certain documents which were exchanged by the authorised Banks. The collection was to be made by the petitioner-Bank from its foreign is stated to have released the documents the exported goods to respondent No.3 without collecting the payment of US $15202.65 as per the invoice. Respondent No.2 is stated to have for payment in his current account, but as his grievance was not redressed by the officials of the petitioner-Bank, he is stated to have preferred a consumer complaint before the District Forum which was allowed and the order has been upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal It is evident that the petitioner-Bank facilitated the release of the consignment to the importer without proper authorization and the same indicates there was gross negligence on its part. The petitioner-Bank being the agent of respondent No.2 had failed to carry out its duties properly. Respondent No.2 had Bank that delivery of documents was to be st payment. Indubitably, US Bancorp is a foreign Bank with Bank had arrangements and respondent No.2 was dealing with the foreign Bank only through the petitioner-Bank. Furthermore, as per the documents containing the payment terms, the exporter retains control of goods through the remitting Bank (i.e. the petitioner-Bank), until the importer makes the payment. If the importer refuses to make the payment, the exporter has the option -3- collect the respondent export to be secured by preparation of s. The collection from its foreign is stated to have released the documents without collecting the pondent No.2 is stated to have s current account, but as his , he is stated to which was allowed and the order has been upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Bank facilitated the release of the consignment to the importer without proper authorization and the same indicates Bank being the agent of respondent No.2 had failed to carry out its duties properly. Respondent No.2 had Bank that delivery of documents was to be st payment. Indubitably, US Bancorp is a foreign Bank with Bank had arrangements and respondent No.2 was dealing Bank. Furthermore, as per the e exporter retains control of goods Bank), until the importer makes the payment. If the importer refuses to make the payment, the exporter has the option RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 to protest the bill and pursue legal action against th circumstances, findings of fact had been recorded by the consumer that the petitioner loss to respondent No.2. The petitioner Rs.7,97,379/- rate) to respondent No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.20,000/ compensation for deficiency in services and causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment. 6. Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. any merit. ‘Consumer’ has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the definition is reproduced hereunder: “ requires, (d) (i) (ii) 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 th 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 no commercial purpose; Explanation. purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 to protest the bill and pursue legal action against th circumstances, findings of fact had been recorded by the consumer that the petitioner-Bank is accountable for deficiency of services which resulted in loss to respondent No.2. The petitioner-Bank was held liable to make paym - (equivalent to US $15202.65 according to prevailing conversion rate) to respondent No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.20,000/ compensation for deficiency in services and causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment. Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not a ‘consumer’ is concerned, we find it to be without any merit. ‘Consumer’ has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the definition is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (d) “consumer” means any person who, (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 to protest the bill and pursue legal action against the importer. In these circumstances, findings of fact had been recorded by the consumer fora below Bank is accountable for deficiency of services which resulted in Bank was held liable to make payment of (equivalent to US $15202.65 according to prevailing conversion rate) to respondent No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.20,000/ compensation for deficiency in services and causing unnecessary mental agony Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank is not a ‘consumer’ is concerned, we find it to be without any merit. ‘Consumer’ has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The relevant extract of In this Act, unless the context otherwise 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 an 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 t include a person who avails of such services for any 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 -4- In these fora below Bank is accountable for deficiency of services which resulted in ent of (equivalent to US $15202.65 according to prevailing conversion rate) to respondent No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in services and causing unnecessary mental agony Bank is not a ‘consumer’ is concerned, we find it to be without any merit. ‘Consumer’ has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer . The relevant extract of In this Act, unless the context otherwise 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 an 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 but does t include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self 7. It is manifest that although any activity with regard to purpose’ is excluded from the purview of been set out that use by a person of livelihood by means of self purpose’ and he would fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined Act. Respondent No. textile business He relied on the petitioner the consignee against the the necessities of life individual works for himself rather than wo salary/wage. profitable operations which he operates directly. unable to substantiate No.2 is not a consumer the petitioner ‘commercial purpose’ and only a bald plea had been taken that respondent No.2 is not a consumer as he was running a business. 8. It is trite that the service was for ‘commercial purpose’. the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self It is manifest that although any activity with regard to is excluded from the purview of the been set out that use by a person of the goods and services for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment would not constitute ‘commercial purpose’ and he would fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined espondent No.2 had stated in his complaint textile business’ and exported textiles out of the country He relied on the petitioner-Bank to collect the proceeds of the payments etc. from the consignee against the documents of the exports. necessities of life for one’s survival. Self employment is a situation where an individual works for himself rather than working for an employer that pays him a salary/wage. A self employed individual earns his livelihood through conducting profitable operations which he operates directly. unable to substantiate before the District Forum No.2 is not a consumer. Furthermore, no material ha the petitioner-Bank to prove that the services ‘commercial purpose’ and only a bald plea had been taken that respondent No.2 is not a consumer as he was running a business. It is trite that the onus is on the service provider to prove that the service was for ‘commercial purpose’. Relianc ment of the Supreme Court in the case of Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment; (Emphasis supplied) It is manifest that although any activity with regard to ‘commercial the Act, but in the explanation, it has goods and services for earning his employment would not constitute ‘commercial purpose’ and he would fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in the his complaint that he was running a ‘home out of the country, to earn his livelihood to collect the proceeds of the payments etc. from documents of the exports. Livelihood means securing Self employment is a situation where an rking for an employer that pays him a A self employed individual earns his livelihood through conducting profitable operations which he operates directly. The petitioner-Bank has been before the District Forum the averment that respondent , no material has been brought on record by services availed were to be used for ‘commercial purpose’ and only a bald plea had been taken that respondent No.2 is onus is on the service provider to prove that the Reliance in this regard can be placed on ment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand -5- employment;” (Emphasis supplied) commercial Act, but in the explanation, it has goods and services for earning his employment would not constitute ‘commercial in the home , to earn his livelihood. to collect the proceeds of the payments etc. from Livelihood means securing Self employment is a situation where an rking for an employer that pays him a A self employed individual earns his livelihood through conducting has been that respondent been brought on record by used for ‘commercial purpose’ and only a bald plea had been taken that respondent No.2 is onus is on the service provider to prove that the egard can be placed on Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 Associates, 2024 INSC 403 reproduced hereunder: “20. the first part i.e. that the person had bought goods/ availed services for a consideration, rests on the complainant himself. clause, in the second part exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act. The onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant. This is in sync wi and 102 of the Evidence Act that ‘one who pleads must prove’. Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same would hav Consumer Protection Act is a consumer legislation intended to address grievances of consumers. a negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show tha 21. 22. 23. if the service provider succeeds in crossing the second part by discharging its onus and proving that the service obtained was for a commercial purpose. onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood through the means of self OP has merely pleaded in its version that the serv for a commercial purpose. No evi its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit. It is now well too settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is no evidence in the eyes of law.” CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 Associates, 2024 INSC 403. The relevant extract of the said judg reproduced hereunder:- “20. xxx There can hardly be any dispute that the onus of proving the first part i.e. that the person had bought goods/ availed services for a consideration, rests on the complainant himself. clause, in the second part, is invoked by the service providers to exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act. The onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant. This is in sync with the general principle embodied in Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act that ‘one who pleads must prove’. Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same would have to be borne by it. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the Consumer Protection Act is a consumer legislation intended to address grievances of consumers. a negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show that the service available was not for a commercial purpose. 21. xx xx xx 22. xx xx xx 23. xxx The question of inquiring into the third part will only arise if the service provider succeeds in crossing the second part by discharging its onus and proving that the service obtained was for a commercial purpose. Unless the service provider discharge onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood through the means of self-employment. OP has merely pleaded in its version that the serv for a commercial purpose. No evi its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit. It is now well too settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is no evidence in the eyes of law.” CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 levant extract of the said judgment is There can hardly be any dispute that the onus of proving the first part i.e. that the person had bought goods/ availed services for a consideration, rests on the complainant himself. The carve out , is invoked by the service providers to exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act. The onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant. th the general principle embodied in Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act that ‘one who pleads must prove’. Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same e to be borne by it. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the Consumer Protection Act is a consumer-friendly and beneficial legislation intended to address grievances of consumers. Moreover, a negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show t the service available was not for a commercial purpose. xxx The question of inquiring into the third part will only arise if the service provider succeeds in crossing the second part by discharging its onus and proving that the service obtained was for a Unless the service provider discharge onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood employment. In the facts of this case, the OP has merely pleaded in its version that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose. No evidence has been led to probabilis its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit. It is now well too settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is no (Emphasis supplied) -6- ment is There can hardly be any dispute that the onus of proving the first part i.e. that the person had bought goods/ availed services carve out , is invoked by the service providers to exclude the complainants from availing benefits under the Act. The onus of proving that the person falls within the carve out must necessarily rest on the service provider and not the complainant. th the general principle embodied in Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act that ‘one who pleads must prove’. Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same e to be borne by it. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the friendly and beneficial Moreover, a negative burden cannot be placed on the complainant to show xxx The question of inquiring into the third part will only arise if the service provider succeeds in crossing the second part by discharging its onus and proving that the service obtained was for a Unless the service provider discharges its onus, the onus does not shift back to the complainant to show that the service obtained was exclusively for earning its livelihood In the facts of this case, the ice was obtained dence has been led to probabilise its case other than merely restating its claim on affidavit. It is now well too settled that a plea without proof and proof without plea is no mphasis supplied) RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 9. Therefore, the averment that respondent No. within the meaning of the Act In the absence of any cogent or convincing material, merely a bald respondent No. Act. 10. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders whereby findings of fact have been recorded by Consequently, 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 30.09.2025 Ramesh Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 Therefore, the averment that respondent No. within the meaning of the Act has not been substantiated by the petitioner In the absence of any cogent or convincing material, merely a bald respondent No.2 is not a ‘consumer’, would not take it out of the purview of the We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders whereby findings of fact have been recorded by Consequently, both the petitions being devoid of any merit stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : CWP No.1138 of 2025 and CWP No.1141 of 2025 Therefore, the averment that respondent No.2 is not a ‘consumer has not been substantiated by the petitioner-Bank In the absence of any cogent or convincing material, merely a bald plea that is not a ‘consumer’, would not take it out of the purview of the We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders whereby findings of fact have been recorded by the Consumer fora below both the petitions being devoid of any merit stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No -7- consumer’ Bank. plea that is not a ‘consumer’, would not take it out of the purview of the We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders fora below. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) RAMESH KUMAR MALIK 2025.09.30 16:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document