IMPORTANT POINT
Member of a partnership firm is not a consumer.

Arun Kumar Goel, (Retd.) President— Respondent is duly served as per office report. He is neither present nor is represented by anyone.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have also examined the record of complaint file.

3. As per averments made in the complaint in it paragraph 2, case of the appellant is, that on 8th July, 2003 a Deed of Partnership was signed between the parties whereby business in the field of education was set up by them. Copy of partnership was enclosed as annexure C1 with the complaint. According to her, in terms of annexure C1, she handed over a cheque of Rs.40,000 to the respondent, this was towards her capital investment. Her further case was, that if any partner desired to retire from the business, this could be done by giving three months notice. This amount was to carry capital interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Appellant was also discharging her duties as a tutor in the subjects of Chemistry, Personal Development, and was attending for Front Officer Counseling. Her salary was fixed at Rs. 5,000 per month. She was allowed to attend classes on English speaking course as a student for a nominal consideration. It is specifically pleaded by her that she was a consumer for this limited purpose.

4. In this background, she filed complaint for grant of Rs.40,000 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum quarterly compounded from 26.6.2003 till the date of realization, she claimed further sum of Rs.42,000 as arrears of unpaid salary for the period August, 2003 to July, 2004 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum quarterly compounded besides Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental stress and harassment and Rs.25,000 as cost of legal proceedings.

5. When put to notice, the complaint was seriously contested and resisted by the respondent. Perusal of his reply shows, that the complainant was not a “consumer”, nor has she availed any services, as such the complaint was without cause of action, and was thus liable to be dismissed with cost. There was no deficiency of service on the part of respondent. Further the complaint was false, fabricated and was based on concocted allegations, which were incorrect to her knowledge. She had not come to the court with clean hands, as she was guilty of deliberate and intentional concealment of material facts and misstatement of facts to mislead the Court. Complaint involved intricate and complicated questions of both law and facts which could not be decided in summary proceedings by the Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such she should approach Civil Court. Contract on the basis of which complaint was filed was a contract of partnership that could not be enforced by District Forum. Alleged dispute being for accounts and partnership contract, was not within the jurisdiction of Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint filed was barred by limitation and District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain, muchless to adjudicate upon the same. Estoppel was also set up as a defence.

6. District Forum below after hearing the parties has dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

7. Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to three decisions, and submitted that the appellant was a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such view contrary to be taken by District Forum was erroneous. Thus, he prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the impugned order and then remanding the case for adjudication to the District Forum below in accordance with law, on the merits of the complaint.

8. We have gone through all these decisions and according to us, submission based on these decisions has been raised to be rejected.

9. First decision relied upon by Mr. Sharma is in case of Narender Kumar v. Bhim Raj Gupta and Others.1 In this case, the complainant had given loan to the partnership firm which was not repaid. Thus compl