R.B.SHARMA vs VIRENDER LAMBA

THE complainant has filed a complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,94,391.89 ps. with interest @ 12% per annum against the defendants. It is pleaded by the complainant that the defendants were carrying on the business of manufacturing Weston Inter Lock and Pressure Cookers under the name and style of M/s. Bee-kay Engineering Works, 246/3 B Industrial Estate, Waneli Sakarwati, New Delhi. THE said firm has since been dissolved and now the work is being carried on by defendant No. 2 at E-2, Kiran Garden, P.O. Uttam Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. It is further pleaded that the complainant was engaged by the firm as salesman to sell goods manufactured by it. He was to be paid 7% commission on the sales made by him and that if the payment was not made to him within 20 days of the date of sale, he was entitled to 1% extra commission. He worked with the respondents from 1982 to 1987. During that period the total sales on the bills were of Rs. 1,88,396.58 and without bills were of the amount of Rs7 28,47,988.90ps. Thus the total sales were of Rs. 20,36,385.48ps. and his commission came to Rs. 1,83,293.28ps.

IT is next averred that the defendants issued a cheque dated 29th October, 1986 in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 2,400/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi which on presentation to the Bank was not honoured. In this way an amount of Rs. 1,85,693.28ps became due to the complainant. The defendants paid an amount of Rs. 43,180.00 at different times to him and after giving credit of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 1,42,513.28 ps is due to him. The complainant has claimed interest on the said amount at the rate of 24% per annum from the dates when the amounts became due. He has filed the complaint for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 1,94,391.89 ps. against the defendants. Defendant No. 1 contested the case. However, defendant No. 2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex -parte. Defendant No. 1 in the written statement, has taken a preliminary objection that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant does not fall within the definition of ''consumer'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

On 4th October, 1990 we ordered the Counsel for the parties to address arguments in the 1st instance on the question, whether the Commission bad the jurisdiction to try the complaint.

WE have heard the Counsel for parties. In order to determine the question it is necessary to read the definition of the word ''complainant'' as given in Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows:- "complainant" means - (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint; From a bare reading of the definition, it is clear that if an individual files a complaint he should be 2 a consumer. The word ''consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) which is as follows:- "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 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 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;

It is evident from Clause (i) of the definition, that a person who purchases goods for consideration and if the goods so purchased are not meant for resale or for any commercial purpose is a consumer. According to Clause (ii), a person who hires any services of another person for consideration is also consumer. The present case is not with regard to purchase of goods by the complainant and therefore, he does not fall within Clause (i). The complainant also does not fall within Clause (ii) as he did not hire services of any person. His claim on the other hand is, that his services were hired by the defendants for selling goods manufactured by them This type of case is not covered under any of the clauses of the definition.

SHRI Vats has vehemently argued that the definition of the word ''consumer'' is not an exhaustive definition as the word ''means'' has been used in the definition. In support of this contention he places reliance of Chori Ouso v. Sasoon Helequa and Another, AIR 1969 Ker. 11 where in it was observed that it is a well known rule of interpretation that the word ''include'' or ''includes'' is used as word of enlargement and ordinarily implies that something-else has been included which falls out side the general language that precedes it and to add to the general clause, a species which does not naturally belong to it. He submits that the definition of ''consumer'' would include a person whose services are hired by another person for consideration and that he can file a complaint if the wages due to him are not paid by the person who hired his services. We have duly considered the arguments but regret our inability to accept the same. It is true that the definition of the word ''consumer'' as given in the Act is not exhaustive. The observations made by the Full Bench in Chori Ouso''s case (supra) are also unacceptable but the inference which he wants lis to draw from the aforesaid judgment cannot be drawn. The Act according to the preamble has been enacted for better protection of the interest of the consumers. Any person who renders service to another person for consideration cannot be said to be a consumer. The definition of the word ''consumer'' cannot be interpreted in the way the learned Counsel wants us to interpret. We consequently reject his contention. After taking into consideration the facts we are of the opinion that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ''consumer'' and consequently the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. For the aforesaid reasons we uphold the preliminary objection of the defendant and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed with costs.