JUDGMENT

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - :—The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the National Commission) constituted under Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short the 1986 Act) had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim for compensation arising out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred on a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act). The factual matrix in which this question arises for consideration, briefly stated, is as under.

2. Shri K. Kumar was traveling from Kombakonam to Thanjavur on the night between 2nd and 3rd June, 1990 in an omnibus which met with an accident near village Vayalur while trying to avert a bullock-cart. It appears that when the bus driver was in the process of over-taking the bullockcart, the bullocks got panicky whereupon the driver swerved the bus to the left and ran into the branches of a tree on the road side resulting in damage to the vehicle; the window panes having been smashed. As the vehicle suddenly swerved and the driver applied the brakes Shri K. Kumar who was sitting in the centre of the rear seat was thrown in the front and hit against the iron side-bar, sustaining a serious head injury. Subsequently he succumbed to the injury. The Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu, on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased lodged a complaint before the National Commission under the 1986 Act claiming compensation. The appellant herein contested the claim contending that the claimant, i.e., the Council, had no locus standi to maintain the action and in any case the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred by the 1988 Act on the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder. The National Commission, contends the appellant, side-stepped the question regarding jurisdiction and without answering the same awarded Rs. 5.10 lacs by way of compensation with interest at 18% per annum from 1st May, 1992 till the date of payment. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 10,000/ was awarded by way of cost. The entire payment together with costs was ordered to be made within three months from the date of judgment. It is against the said decision of the National Commission that the present appeal is preferred.

3. In order to appreciate the principal contention relating to the jurisdiction the National Commission, it is necessary to look to the relevant provisions of the 1986 Act. This law was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes etc. Section 2 contains the dictionary of the said Act. Section 2(c) defines a complaint to mean any allegation made in writing by a consumer complaining that as a result of any unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader he had suffered loss or damage or the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him were defective or the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him were deficient in any respect or that a trader was guilty of charging a price in excess of the fixed price or that displayed on the goods or packet containing such goods. Section 2(d) defines a consumer as under :-

"S. 2(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 pur