Madhivanan vs P.K. KUMAR

THIS is an appeal by the complainant.

THE complainant entrusted the work of construction of his house to the Opposite Party who was to supply the labour part of the construction. He had so many grievances in the manner the opposite party was performing the work. Aggrieved by the attitude, acts and omissions of the Opposite Party, he filed a complaint asking for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The District Forum, Pondicherry by order dated 23.3.93 rejected the complaint for the reason that summary enquiry may not be sufficient for the determination of the litigious points and that they required elaborate evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the District Forum wrongly declined to entertain the complaint and prayed this commission to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Forum for adjudication afresh.

AT this stage the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party raised a contention that the matter will not at all come within the jurisdiction of the District Forum inasmuch as the Complainant is not a consumer and he placed reliance for that purpose on three decisions namely, (1) Mrs. Vinodini Bajpai v. Rajya Krishak Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow 1992 (1) CPR Page 10, (2) M/s. Supercon v. Executive Director, Titagarh Steel Ltd., II (1993) CPJ 777=1993 (1) CPR page 395 and (3) Shyam Murari Sharma v. Bhanwarlal 1993 (2) CPR page 53. We shall first examine the question of jurisdiction. The relevant provision defining the ''consumer'' is to be found under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as per which a consumer is a person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration. In this case the Opposite Party has not come forward to offer his service free of cost. The consideration is not disputed. The fact of deploying labour for the benefit of a person is obviously an act of rendering a service to that person. There cannot be any difference of opinion in this matter. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party does not have also any arguments in respect of this aspect. The judgment quoted supra are his only sheet anchor. The first two judgments do not have any application to the facts of this case, because in those cases it is the contractor who wanted to avail of the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act, though he was rendering service. It was held that a person who renders service is not a consumer. In fact as per the definition which was referred to above, it is the person hiring or availing service who is the consumer, The machinery created under the Act has the distinctive feature that both the parties to the transaction cannot come before the District Form. It is not like any of the civil fora which any of the parties can approach. Only that party who availed the service is a consumer and the forum is only to protect such person Therefore, the decisions referred to above shut the door of the Consumer Forum to those who rendered service and they are not of any help to the Opposite Party in this case since in this case the complainant is one who availed the service.

THE third decision quoted is that of the State Commission, Rajasthan referring to on a National Commission order and stated that "the only distinguishing feature of the case is that in the case before the National Commission, the contractor was the complainant whereas in the present case, the person who has given the contract is the complainant. But, as stated by the District Forum, so far as the principle laid down in the case regarding hiring of service is concerned, it will make no difference." This decision of the State Commission puts on the same footing the consumer and the supplier. With great respect we express our inability to agree to this views. As explained above, in any case of consumption there is one party which provides services and another who avails the services. It is the second category who is a consumer and he alone can avail of the machinery meant to protect him against the supplier . THE fact that the first category has no remedy in the Consumer Forum does not take away the remedy created specifically for the second category with a view to protect him against the malpractices of the first one. We are therefore, constrained not to accept the assertion found in the third decision relied upon and we hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act and as such entitled to have his case entertained by the District Forum. Now turning to the demand of the complainant that the matter be remanded, we find that it is justified. It is true that the National Commission in Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank has held that when a case implies elaborate evidence, it is preferable to leave it to the Civil Court. But in subsequent decision viz,. S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa II (1991) CPJ 202 (NC)=First Appeal No. 96 of 1990 LIC of India v. Bhavanam Sreenivas Reddy II (1991) CPJ 189 (NC)=(First Appeal No. 79 of 1990 dated 5.6.1991) and S. Bhagat Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 7 of 1991 decided on 7th October, 1991) the National Commission has occasion to clarify the scope of the observations made in Special Machines Ltd. case. It has made clear that the rejection of the complaints on account of the complicated nature of the case would be only an extraordinary course and if cases were to be rejected merely on the ground that examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be necessary. It would amount to unjust denial of the benefits of the Act to the aggrieved Consumer by erroneous abdication of jurisdiction by the Fora. We do not find in the present case such a complicated set of facts as would compel the Forum to reject the complaint. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum for proper disposal in accordance with law. It is open to the complainant to file an amended complaint making his grievances more precise and limiting them to those for which he has evidence so as to bring the process of adjudication in tune with the contemplation of the protective machinery. Appeal allowed.