REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS (GOVT. OF INDIA) HARYANA vs PUSHPA JAIN And OTHERS

WHETHER an authorised agent of the National Savings Organisation is a "Consumer" qua his principals, under the Consumer Protection Act, is the focal question in this appeal.

THE facts giving arise to the issue aforesaid are somewhat peculiar. Admittedly the complainant-respondent Smt. Pushpa Jain is an authorised agent of the Public Provident Fund Scheme floated under the National Savings Organisations at Hisar for canvassing deposits into the Fund aforesaid. According to the terms of the Agency she was entitled to a commission of 1 % on the amount of initial subscription paid into the said fund opened on the basis of her canvassing. On the 9th/11th of April, 1990, she booked one registered parcel No. 260 with the Head Post-Office, Hisar addressed to Sh. Tara Singh, the then Regional Director, National Savings Organisation, Haryana at Chandigarh which contained 136 Public Provident Fund receipts. According to her the said registered parcel was not delivered at Chandigarh to the addressee due to the negligence of the postal authorities. Consequent thereto she could not receive her commission amounting to Rs. 6797/- which according to her caused great mental distress apart from financial loss. Respondent preferred the complaint entirely against the Postal Department and its officials without even remotely impleading the present appellant. On notice being issued in the said complaint the Superintendent of Post Office filed his reply denying the entire allegations and initially taking the plea that in fact the complainant had not booked any parcel on the 11th of April, 1990. It was also pointed out that in case the said parcel contained valuable documents like Public Provident Fund receipts, the same should have been necessarily insured. However, as the case proceeded further the Postal Department was able to trace the said parcel and intimated on the 22nd of March, 1991 that the same was actually delivered to the addressee on the 16th of April, 1990 and in support of the same attested copy of the receipt was produced. Thereupon, the District Forum wrote to the appellant Department seeking clarification about the receipt of the parcel and the action if any taken thereon. In reply thereto the appellant informed that an amount of Rs. 5186/- had already been paid to the complainant Respondent as commission and the balance of Rs. 1611/- would be sent in due course after the completion of necessary formalities.

It is not in dispute that the appellants were never formally impleaded as a party to the complaint aforesaid. However, in reply to the communication of the District Forum, they firmly took up the stand that the complainant-respondent was not a consumer qua them and consequently the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings against them. In the alternative, it was also the firm objection that since in a legal notice the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 1 lac and interest etc. against the appellants, the District Forum was lacking in the pecuniary jurisdiction as well. However, without adjudicating on these jurisdictional objections at all, the District Forum proceeded to decide the case on merits. Thereby it absolved the Postal Department of all liability, but held the appellants liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 500/- and further to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the commission amount due to her with effect from May 1990. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been preferred.

THE sheet anchor of the argument of Mr. Arun Walia, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent does not even remotely come within the ambit of a consumer and was consequently totally disentitled to raise any consumer dispute and equally the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was submitted that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the respondent had hired any services from the appellant and indeed far from the same being for any consideration paid or promised. In the alternative, it was submitted that the appellant had never in fact been even impleaded as a party in the complaint which was directed originally against the Postal Department only. Consequently no relief against the appellant could possibly be granted in the eye of law. We find patent merit in the twin stand strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant. Inevitably what first deserves consideration is whether the respondent can be brought within the ambit of a "consumer", even when its definition under the Act is construed with the utmost liberality.

NOW it is somewhat axiomatic that a consumer dispute can only be raised before the Redressal Forum by a "complainant" who according to its definition has either to be a consumer or any voluntary consumer association registered under the law or the Central or any State Government. Patently enough the respondent does not belong to the latter two categories and must satisfy the test of being a consumer before she could claim relief from the District Forum. The word ''consumer'' is not to be considered as a term of ordinary common parlance because it has been somewhat precisely defined in Section 2(1)(d). This definition classifies the consumer in two basic categories namely those who buy goods for consideration and others who hire any services for consideration. Obviously enough herein no question of any purchase or sale of any goods for consideration arises and, therefore, she sole question is whether the respondent had hired any ser vice from the appellant a consideration in order to fall within Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act. On the virtually admitted fact of the relationship of the appellant organisation and its authorised agents, it is manifest that the National Savings Organisation was not performing or rendering any service to or quo their agents engaged by them for canvassing deposits in the various funds. Once that is so, no question of hiring any services by the respondent from the appellant organisation would arise. Even otherwise a reference to the definition of service in Clause (o) of Section 2(1) would plainly indicate that the relationship of the appellant as principal and the respondent as their authorised agent would not come within the ambit of the said definition either. Thus it is plain that inter-se betwixt the appellant and the respondent, no question of hiring of any services could possibly arise. Yet again the definition of consumer mandates that the hiring of services must be for a consideration which has been either paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised. Herein again, there is no any hint of any payment or consideration given by the respondent to the appellant Indeed it was somewhat plausibly argued on behalf of the appellant that far from the respondent having hired any services from them, the boot was on the other leg and the appellant had hired the respondent''s services instead by way of the payment of commission on the business secured by her. It has consequently to be held that another material and integral part of the definition of a consumer namely the payment of consideration by him is totally lacking in the case. Indeed from whichever angle the matter is viewed from, the respondent cannot possibly be brought within the definition of the consumer under the Statute. We must also notice that Mr. Shailendra Jain, the learned Counsel for the respondent when faced with the up-hill and indeed the impossible task of sustaining the locus-standi of the respondent as a consumer to raise the complaint had fairly conceded his inability to do so. However, we must record that we are not in the least basing our conclusion on his concession.

IN view of the above the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that an authorised agent of the National Savings Organisation is not a consumer qua his principals under the Act.

THE alternative plea of the appellant is equally entitled to succeed. It is not in dispute and indeed is a matter of record that the respondent''s complaint was directed entirely and wholly against the Postal Department. THE appellants in the present case were namely called upon by the District Forum to give information whether the missing parcel had been delivered to them on 16th of April, 1990 and further as to the same having not been dealt within their office. This information was duly supplied and it is manifest from the record that the appellants at no stage were formally impleaded as an opposite party before the District Forum. Nevertheless, they had by way of abundant caution taken up the firm preliminary objection that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to proceed against them, on the twin ground that the complainant was not in any way a consumer qua them and further that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because a claim of more than Rs. 1 lac was sought to be raised against them. Though the District Forum expressly noticed these objections, it nevertheless proceeded to grant relief against them without even remotely adjudicating upon its absence of jurisdiction. It is somewhat elementary that no relief can be granted against a person who is not even a formal party to the consumer dispute and herein the appellants not having been duly impleaded were beyond the pale of any liability before the District Forum. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal must succeed on the twin ground indicated above. The same is hereby allowed and the order of the District Forum is set-aside. There will however, be no imposition of any costs. Appeal allowed.