1994 (10) TMI 235 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund and compensation.

Analysis:

1. The complainant applied for equity shares and debentures, paid the required amount, but did not receive the allotted shares or a refund despite several reminders. The District Forum found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the amount with interest, pay compensation, and costs.

2. The first opposite party raised objections stating that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum, however, held that the complainant hired services for consideration, making her a consumer as per the Act.

3. The second opposite party remained absent during the proceedings and was set ex parte due to non-appearance.

4. The appellant, first opposite party, challenged the District Forum's decision, arguing that the complainant was not a consumer as per the Act. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the complainant did not meet the criteria to be considered a consumer.

5. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the definition of a consumer and the requirements for a transaction to be considered under the Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a completed transaction for a complaint to fall under the Act.

6. The appellant's argument was supported by the husband of the first respondent, who highlighted the post-amendment scenario and reiterated that the complainant did not avail services for consideration, thus not meeting the criteria to be considered a consumer.

7. The Commission, after considering the arguments and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Act, concluded that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the law. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the District Forum's order was set aside, with no costs imposed on either party.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of the complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the determination of service deficiency by the opposite parties, and the entitlement of the complainant to a refund and compensation. The Commission ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the complainant did not meet the legal criteria to be considered a consumer, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.