The definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act includes beneficiaries, affirming the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum in insurance claims, and suggesting appeal as the proper legal recourse.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the instant CRP has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief background of the case is as follows:

2.a. The respondent/complainant has filed a complaint directing the opposite party/revision petitioners to return the TDS amount of Rs.1,37,796/- with interest at 12% ffrom 20.01.2021 to till the date of payment, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agany, Rs.2000 towards cost of the legal notice and Rs.5000 towars cost of litigation.

2.b. The complainant met with the road accident on 27.10.2012 and in that accident, her left hands is totally spoiled with grevious injury. Therefore, she filed MCOP.No.520 of 2019 before the Special Sub Court No.II (MACT Cases) Villupuram and a compensation of Rs.14,08,300/- was awarded with interest by the Tribunal. Towards compliance, the petitioners herein issued cheque for Rs.20,20,695/- as against the gross cheque of Rs.21,58,671/- after deducting TDS amount of Rs.1,37,976/-. It is the grievance of the respondent that having deducting the TDS amount on 19.01.2021, the same was not remitted to the Income Tax Department. Only after legal notice issued by the petitioner on 20.01.2022, the revision petitioner has remitted the TDS amount on 24.01.2022. Therefore, the complainant's claim for refund of the TDS amount has lost. Hence, the complaint. The revision petitioner took a stand admitting that there was deduction of TDS and remittance to the Income Tax Department with delay. It was the specific contention that Consumer Commission does not have any jurisdiction and the complaint is not maintainable.

2.c. Taking consideration of the above circumstances, the Tribunal has directed the revision petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,796 with 12% interest per annum from 19.01.2021 to till the date of realisation and Rs.10000 towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony causes to the respondents and further Rs.7000 towards litigation costs.Challenging the order, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ought not have entertained the complaint and the Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. According to the petitioners, the respondent has not availed any service for a consideration from the petitioners as stipulated under Section 2 (7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly, the revision is very much maintainable.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent mainly would submit that as against the order of the District Consumer Commission, only appeal is maintainable before the State Commission as per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Only in order to avoid the mandatory procedure in filing the appeal, the present revision is filed. Hence, according the respondent, there is no jurisdictional issue and admittedly, there was a contract between the insurance company to pay the insurance amount. The respondent is the beneficiary of the insurance. Therefore, she certainly will come within the ambit of the consumer. Therefore, seeks for dismissal of this revision.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer and the District Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint. Hence, seeks to allow this revision.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

7.