Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President;
Mr. K.R. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Member
P.R. SURESH—Complainant
versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA CO-OP. MILK PRODUCER,
FEDERATION LTD. & ANOTHER—Respondents
Complaint No. 105 of 1991—Decided on 23.9.1991

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : None.
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. R.N.

To be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, an individual must prove that they have purchased goods for consideration or hired services for consideration.

Headnote:
Consumer - Exclusive Clearing and Forwarding Agent - The court held that the complainant, appointed as an exclusive clearing and forwarding agent by the respondent, did not qualify as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had been hired for services and had not purchased goods or hired services for consideration.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, appointed as an exclusive clearing and forwarding agent by the respondent, filed a complaint for recovery of damages due to the respondent's defective services.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had been hired for services and had not purchased goods or hired services for consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant qualified as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to be considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the complainant needed to prove that he had purchased goods for consideration or hired services for consideration. As the complainant had been hired as an agent by the respondent, he did not qualify as a consumer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, stating that as the complainant had not hired the services of the respondent for consideration, he did not qualify as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

ORDER

Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President— Mr. R.N. appears for R-2 and files a Memo stating that R-2 adopts the statement of R-1. The complainant and his Advocate absent. Heard the respondent’s Advocate on the question whether the complainant is a consumer. In the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that he was appointed as exclusive clearing and forwarding agent by the respondent for the State of Maharashtra w.e.f. 16.11.1988 for a period of two years. As the respondent did not supply the goods to him as per the agreement, he suffered loss. Hence, he has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages suffered by him on account of the defective services of the respondent. The respondents have contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. To become a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the complainant has to prove that he has purchased goods for consideration or hired services for consideration. In this case, admittedly the complainant has been appointed by the respondent as an agent. Hence, it is clear that the respondents have hired the services of the complainant. If any conditions of services are violated it is upto him to approach the Civil Court for relief. So far as this Commission is concerned, the Commission can entertain the complaint only if he is a consumer. As he has not hired the services of the respondent for consideration, he will not be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. If that is so, the complaint cannot be entertained.

3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Complaint dismissed.

–

Click Here to Read the rest of this document