In Brief
A state-owned leather company deposited Rs. 9 crores with Vijaya Bank as a fixed deposit. The bank later claimed the deposit was pledged without consent to grant an overdraft facility. After refusing refund, the company filed a consumer complaint. The Supreme Court held the complaint was not maintainable under consumer protection law because fraud allegations require civil or criminal adjudication, not summary consumer proceedings. However, the court clarified that merely earning interest on deposits does not make a transaction commercial in purpose. Whether a corporate depositor qualifies as a consumer depends on the dominant intent behind the deposit, and the bank must prove commercial purpose. The company may pursue civil or criminal remedies separately.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.