IMPORTANT POINT
Complainants not being consumers have no locus standi to raise consumer dispute before Consumer Fora.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—Mount Litera Zee School alongwith its Chairman Aditya Verma has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party contractor in the contracted work for the construction of the school building assigned to the opposite parties.

2. On bare reading of the complaint the question arises as to whether the complainants are consumers as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if not whether the complainants have locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint? Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act defines the term “Consumer” as under: -

(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 purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;

3. The allegation of the complainants is that they had hired/availed of services of the opposite parties for construction of the school building and the opposite parties were deficient in service because there were number of deficiencies in the construction work undertaken by the opposite parties. Thus, clause (ii) of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act is relevant for our purpose. On bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that definition of consumer as given in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act carves out an exception that the person hiring or availing of service for commercial purpose is not a consumer.

4. On reading of the complaint it is clear that as per the complainants, services of the opposite parties were hired and availed for construction of a school to be run by the complainants which is obviously a commercial purpose. Therefore, in my view the complainants cannot be termed as consumers.

5. Learned counsel for the complainants has contended that actually the complaint has been filed by trustee Mr. Aditya Varma on behalf of Sri Sai Educational Trust, which trust does not indulge in any commercial activity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the services of the opposite parties were availed by the complainants for running a school with commercial interest.

6. On careful consideration of record, I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainants. No doubt in paras 1 & 2 of the complaint it is alleged that the complainant No. 2 is a trustee of public charitable trust, namely, Sri Sai Educational Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act and that the complaint has been signed and verified by the said trustee on behalf of the above noted trust. However, the fact remains that in the title of the complaint it is not clarified that the complaint has been filed by the trustee on behalf of the above noted trust. Even the complaint has been signed by Mr. Aditya Verma in his personal capacity as the Chairman of the complainant No.1 school without mention