Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The aggrieved opposite party against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum has filed this appeal. The complainant (respondent herein) entered into an Agreement (Ex. A-1) with the opposite party on 14.9.1991 for setting up of a Manufacturing Unit for manufacture of Mono/Di/Tri Calcium Phosphate. As per Ex. A-1 agreement, the opposite party has been appointed as the Technical Consultant and he has to render four types of services as mentioned in Clause 6 of the agreement, viz.,

(a) deputing his technicians to prepare a product sample at pilot plant level as per ISI specifications;

(b) preparation and submission of a detailed project report within 30 days from the date of agreement;

(c) rendition of help to prepare designs and drawings for all the fabrication and machinery works undertaken for fabrication by the complainant at the site and supervision and inspection whenever necessity arises.

(d) provision of training to the staff of the complainant for a period of 30 days to run the plant successfully and smoothly.

The service charges were fixed at Rs. 1,25,000/- and on the date of Ex. A-1 agreement itself, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by cheque were paid by the complainant to the opposite party towards the said service charges. These are all admitted facts. Now, according to the complainant, the opposite party failed to render the services as agreed. The opposite party failed to do so inspite of a legal notice sent by the complainant on 10.7.1992. Thus alleging and further alleging that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs. 30,000/- paid towards service charges and claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for non-performance of the services, and Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings.

2. The opposite party contended that after Ex. A-1 agreement, the complainant and the opposite party had entered into several other agreements and if there had been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of Ex. A-1 agreement, the other agreements would not have been executed. It was further contended that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint cannot be maintained.

3. The District Forum, on consideration of pleadings and evidence, rejected the contentions of the opposite party and held that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable, and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It directed the opposite party to return the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the complainant towards service charges and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant. It also ordered payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

4. It may be mentioned here that once before the District Forum passed an award against which an appeal was filed in this Commission in which the award of the District Forum was confirmed and in the Revision filed against that order, the National Commission reversed the said orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and remanded the matter to the District Forum for fresh consideration of the matter and it was then the present impugned order of award of the District Forum was passed.

5. Now in the appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant/opposite party that the order of the District Forum is erroneous since it is against the evidence and probabilities of the case. It is submitted by the opposite party that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and that in any event there was no deficiency in service on his part.

6. Regarding the first point raised, viz., that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the view that there is no substance in it. 4 is not disp