MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORP vs SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN

THIS appeal by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 8.4.1993 passed by the District Forum, Bidar, in Complaint No. 127/ 1992 directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant as compensation. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:- 1. The complainant applied for a certified copy of the ledger extract of his loan account to the opposite party, the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Bidar Branch, on 22.11.1992. The opposite party on 5.12.1992 refused to supply the said certified copy of the ledger extract of his loan account and thereby failed to render proper service to the complainant. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought a sum of Rs. 500 /- towards damages from the opposite party.

THE opposite party filed its version and denied its liability to supply the certified copy of the ledger extract of the complainant''s loan account required by the complainant. It further averred that there is no provision in the Act for the supply of the certified copy of the ledger extract as required by the complainant. THE opposite party, on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant and the opposite party filed their affidavits. The complainant got copy of application filed by him marked as Ex. P1.

The District Forum on consideration of the material placed on record and hearing the parties, held the complainant as a ''consumer'' and the opposite party in refusing to supply the copies required by the complainant, the services rendered by it amounted deficiency of service in nature and in that view awarded compensation to the complainant.

WE have called for the records. Perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the parties. The complainant has averred that he applied for a certified copy of the ledger extract of his loan account. Nowhere, the complainant averred that he sought the certified copy of the ledger extract on payment of any consideration. The averments made in the complaint, the affidavit of the complainant and the recitals in the application as per Ex. P1 do not show that the complainant sought the supply of certified copy on payment of any consideration. The definition of ''consumer'' as provided under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act, provides as under:- Sec.2(1)(d): (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, of 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 of 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.

IT is clear from this that if the services were hired for consideration, only then such a person can be classified as a ''Consumer''. In the present case, as referred above, it is clear that the complainant had neither paid any consideration nor had promised to pay any consideration for the services which he had sought from the opposite party. So, the complainant, having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case cannot be regarded as a ''consumer'' at all as per the definition of the said expression contained in the Act. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we find that the finding recorded by the District Forum, holding the complainant as a ''consumer'' is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, Bidar dated 8.4.1993 recorded in Complaint No. 127/ 1992 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal allowed.