Order

Special leave granted.

2. The respondent has been served and has put in an appearance and filed a counter. It was not represented when the SLP had been called out on an earlier date, when it was adjourned due to its absence. It is not represented today, even after the SLP has been passed over once.

3. The order that is under appeal was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It says:

“In our opinion, Section 230 of the Contract Act in terms will apply only to suits instituted before a regular Civil Court and not to complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act which is a special legislation intended to protect consumers in India against the exploi­tation of manufactures, tra­ders and providers of service by supply of defective goods or by deficiency in service resulting in loss to the consumer.”

The National Commission took the view that, inasmuch as the respondent was pursuing the remedy available to it under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and had claimed that it had hired the services of the appellant and there was deficiency in rendering such services, its complain was maintainable, for the protection given to an agent under Section 230