NATANI ENTERPRISES vs RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PRIVATE LTD.

AGAINST the dismissal of the complaint by order dated 10.9.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 938/90 the unsuccessful complainant has filed this appeal. It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail which have led to this appeal. Suffice it to state that the complainant- appellant filed a complaint against the opposite party-respondent praying that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- together with interest @ 15% may be ordered to be paid to the complainant as remuneration for the service for acting as advertising agency. Besides this a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as damages and costs. A direction for adjustment of the previous work measuring 1053 cm. in future was also sought An application was invited by the opposite party in December, 1986 from persons acting as advertising agency. The complainant submitted an application and sanction was given. The complainant started working in January, 1987 and worked upto December, 1987 and according to the complainant the work done by it was satisfactory. The complainant was notable to do work on account of adverse circumstances from January, 1988. It has been alleged that from January, 1987 to December, 1987 advertisement of 1053 cm. were given but remuneration/consideration of the work was not paid. According to the complainant for the advertising work of 1053 cm. the amount comes to Rs. 80,000/- and its commission 15% comes to Rs, 12,000/- which the complainant is entitled .to get. Certain other facts were stated in the complaint in para 13 of the complaint. However the complaint was filed as stated above for the reliefs mentioned above. In support of that Shri Govind Das submitted his affidavit.

THE opposite party-respondent refuted the claim filed by the complainant and raised various objections but keeping in view the findings arrived at by the District Forum, Jaipur and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we need not mention the defence taken in detail. However the opposite party under the head additional pleas raised an objection that the complaint cannot be heard by a Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) for the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and further that he has not hired the services for consideration from the opposite party. Factum of payment of commission was also denied on the ground that no terms and conditions were settled nor any agreement or contract was executed between the parties. THE opposite party submitted photostat copies of the various letters. On 4.9.91 the District Forum heard the arguments on the question of jurisdiction and thereafter it passed the impugned order on 10.9.91. THE District Forum in the impugned order has categorically come to the conclusion that there is no consumer dispute involved between the parties and, therefore, there is no question of defective or deficient service of the opposite party. It, therefore, declined to grant reliefs under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. However in para 5 of the order appealed against the District Forum has stated that there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint; and ATA MAH PARIVAD GUN DOSH PAR UKAT PARKAR SE KHARIJ KIYA JATA HAI Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant construed this as dismissal of the complaint on merits. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also considered the complaint, version of the case and the order appealed against with requisite care in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant as nobody has appeared to oppose the appeal on behalf of the respondent. The dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, Jaipur was based on two grounds: , (1) that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as defined in Sec. 2(l)(d) of the Act and; (2) that the reliefs prayed for by the complainant in the complaint cannot be granted by a Redressal Forum under Sec. 14(1) of the Act.

A careful analysis of the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. ''Complainant'' has been defined in Sec. 2(l)(b) and ''complaint'' has been defined in Sec. 2(l)(c) of the Act. We may read part of the definition of consumer which is relevant for our purpose: "(d) "consumer" means any person who,- (i) omit (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deterred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires 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;"

''Consumer dispute'' has been defined in Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act which is as follows:- "(e) "consumer dispute" means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint."

FROM the averments made in the complaint the complainant cannot be said to have hired the services of the opposite party for the purpose of advertisement. The complainant has merely acted as an advertising agency and if the question of service is to be considered then it is the opposite party which has hired the services of the complainant. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has not hired the services. It is not a consumer as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) and so the consumer dispute does not arise. The District Forum was therefore right in holding that there is no consumer dispute involved in the complaint and if there was no consumer dispute the complaint cannot be entertained. However, the matter can be viewed from another angle. We have already reproduced the reliefs which the complainant has sought in the complaint. It was put to the learned Counsel for the appellant whether such reliefs can be granted by a Redressal Forum established under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. He could not answer the question satisfactorily. It is well settled by catena of cases of the National Commission that the reliefs that a Redressal Forum can grant are only those which are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act. See 1991 (1) CPR 361 and 1991 (1) CPR 614. It is also well settled that for the purpose of granting reliefs the Redressal Forum cannot invoke the inherent powers, for, a Redressal Forum is not a Court. Reference in this connection may be made to I (1992) CPJ 148. The District Forum could not grant the reliefs which the complainant has prayed for. The order of the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, Jaipur is, therefore, affirmed. In order to remove the apprehension in the mind of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we make it clear that the order appealed against is not an order dismissing the complaint on merits though the District Forum has used the words "GUNDOSH", for, the District Forum itself has stated that it is dismissing the complaint as not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order for it has used the word" VICHARNIO NAHONE SE USKO KHARIJ KARNE KE ALWA KOI BIKALP NAHI RAHETA HAI."

THERE is no life in this appeal. It fails and is hereby dismissed. As the respondent has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.