R B SHARMA Vs. VIRENDER LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 ).