AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WHETHER a mere licence for funning a sale counter in the C.S.D. canteen situated in the head-quarters Western Command is a consumer within the meaning of its definition under the Consumer Protection Act is the solitary threshold question in this appeal.
AS is manifest from the above the issue herein is primarily legal and the relevant facts merit notice with utmost brevity. The complainant-appellant is a retired army officer who on his own showing was permitted to run a sale counter in a departmental store situated in the head-quarters of the Western Command, C.S.D. canteen. According to him he had stored goods with Rs. 99,000/- for sale there-at and had also employed sales girls for the said purpose. It was his case that the respondents were providing various facilities to him for a consideration of commission @ 5% of the total sale. On the 27th of July, 1989 the appellant was served with a notice for closing down the C.S.D. canteen by the 25th of August, 1989. When the appellant questioned the said notice and sought reasons, therefor he alleged that the respondent took away his goods causing serious financial loss to the tune of Rs. 91,750/-. On the aforesaid allegations he had brought the complaint before the District Forum, Ambala. On notice being issued the respondents put in a written statement in which the firm preliminary objection taken and later pressed was that the appellant did not fall within the ambit of a CONSUMER at all and was consequently not entitled to maintain the complaint. The ancillary objections about the non-service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. were also raised. On merits the stand taken was that the status of the complainant was not more than that of a licencee and thus he had no right against the respondents or to question their policy decision of closing down the non C.S.D. Section in the canteen in question. It was also submitted that the complainant had first resorted to the Civil Court where he had failed on merits and thus could not resort to the consumer jurisdiction afresh.
The objection about the maintainability of the complaint having been strenuously pressed, the District Forum treated the same as a preliminary issue and after appraisal of the matter concluded that the complainant was just a licencee and in no way came within the definition of a consumer. Consequently, it was held that the complaint is not maintainable and was, therefore, dismissed.
THE appellant projected his case in person and passionately argued that he came within the ambit of a consumer. However, he fairly conceded that no contract in writing had been formally executed barring letter of permission given to him. THE primal argument projected on his behalf was that since the payment of commission at 5% of the total sales was admitted, there was consideration for the contract and this would bring him within the four corners of the definition of a consumer. We are afraid that despite the vehemence with which the aforesaid stand was taken, the same is without merit. The appellant being not fully aware of the niceties of the law made submissions which were some what off the mark. It is somewhat manifest that the present case cannot even remotely be brought within the ambit of a sale or purchase of goods for a consideration under Section 2(1)(d)(i). Consequently the appellant at the highest can fall back only on Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) aforesaid. Even when pressed the appellant could not indicate what were the services which he had hired. It is significant that the word "service" has been defined in Clause (o) of Section 2(1) and is in the following terms: "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."
A plain reading of the above would indicate that the appellant''s case cannot even remotely come within the services specified and enumerated in the definition. Even as regards the wider concept of service of any description which is made available to potential users, the appellant obviously could not indicate how a mere licence granted to him would convert him on the other hand into a hirer of any services offered by the respondents. The issue is somewhat so plain that it seems unnecessary to elaborate the same or launch on any exhaustive disertation thereon. On the appellant''s own pleadings and the undisputed facts, the District Forum had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant was just a licence without any concluded contract or any specified time for running the sales counter. We are in agreement with the said conclusion and also broadly concurred with the line of reasoning of the District Forum. In an order of affirmance, it is unnecessary to traverse the same grounds again and it suffices to say that we confirm the order under appeal. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we refrain from burdening the consumer-appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.