SATYA NARAYAN MISRA vs ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA

THE appellant (opposite party) Satya Narayan Misra has filed Appeal No. 1649/SC/96 against the order dated 16.8.96 passed by District Forum, Badaun in Complaint Case No. 260/95 by which the District Forum had directed the appellant (opposite party), to pay Rs. 10,629/-alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the bill upto the date of the payment and also costs of Rs. 150/-. He (Satya Narayan Misra) also filed a Revision No. 01/SC/97 against the order dated 25.10.96 by which a notice was issued to the appellant/revisionist under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 convicting him with simple imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 250/- for the revisionist having failed to comply with the order dated 16.8.96 passed in Case No. 260/95.

ON 16.1.97 the appeal and revision both were fixed for hearing. Both the parties represented by Mr. Sanjay Saxena and Mr. R.K. Gupta respectively for appellant/revisionist and the respondent. Since both the appeal and revision related to the same case between the same parties and prayed for combining for decision, we therefore, decide this appeal and revision by the single order.

The case in brief as per the parties is as observed by District Forum in its order under appeal that the complainant is the Editor of a Weekly Newspaper and the opposite party Shiksha Adhikask, Basic Shiksha Parishad and others placed order with the complainant for publication of the News of sports in the years of 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the bill No. 114 dated 31.1.95 for Rs. 10,629/- was given to the opposite party (appellant here). The opposite party did not make the payment inspite of repeated requests and therefore the complaint was filed with the District Forum for direction against the appellant for payment of Rs. 10,629/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. But the opposite party raised the objection on the question of the jurisdiction of the District Forum as the complainant was not a consumer.

AFTER hearing both the parties the District Forum turned down the objection of the appellant, accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,629/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% and compensation of Rs. 150/-. Having been aggrieved with this order the appeal has been preferred. In the meanwhile the District Forum was also approached by the complainant-respondent for execution of the order dated 16.8.96 under Sections 25 and 27, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Forum passed the impugned order on 25.10.96 as mentioned above punishing the appellant with simple imprisonment of 3 months with a fine of Rs. 250/- and issue of warrant of arrest. Learned Counsel for the appellant-revisionist has urged vehemently before us that as per the facts of the case of the complainant- respondent it is a simple case of money recovery of the alleged bill for Rs. 10,629 /- for the publication of the news of sports and not a consumer''s dispute, because the complainant has neither availed nor hired any service of the opposite party for consideration but it is the other way that the opposite party had hired the services of the complainant for publication of the advertisement for the sports news of 1993-94 and 1994-95 for which the appellant had raised a bill of Rs. 10,629/-. This is a case of money recovery and relief can be sought in the Civil Court but not under the proceedings of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This plea of the learned Counsel of the appellant being convincing has force. According to the provisions as contained under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is not a consumer as per the allegations raised in the complaint as it is neither a case of purchase of defective goods nor availing or hiring of any service on consideration by the complainant as contemplated under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the order dated 16.8.96 passed in Case No. 260/1995 by the District Forum is not sustainable and consequently set aside.

SINCE the order dated 16.8.96 has been set aside the order and notice dated 25.10.96 passed by the District Forum on 25.10.96 and the proceedings related to it in execution of the original order dated 16.8.96 have become infructuous and accordingly quashed. The result is that the appeal and revision both are allowed. The original copy of this order shall be part of the Appeal No. 1649/1994 and its copy shall be placed on Revision No. 01/SC/1997. Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules within two weeks. Ordered accordingly.