I P KATYAL Vs. POL SERVICE INDIAN REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint. In this matter it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail as the issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not.

(2.) The complainant, Mr. I.P. Katyal, Chief Executive, Asim Engineers and Consultants, had filed a complaint against the opposite party, M/s. Poleservice (Indian Region), for a direction to pay the agreed commission, i.e. 10%. It is the contention of the complainant that he was duly authorised by the opposite party to look after the promotion of their business in the field of management for drilling of rigs and allied services for which purpose the opposite party had agreed to pay him upto 10% of Commission from the received payment. It is found from the order of the State Commission that the opposite party, at the later stage, offered the complainant the commission at 1.5% only instead of 10%. This has prompted a complainant to approach the State Commission for a direction to be issued to the opposite party to get him the due payments.

(3.) In response to the notice issued, the opposite party filed its reply, pleading that the complainant was not a consumer, and that the contract in question was suspended due to worsening law and order situation in Assam, where the contract was to be performed. For these reasons and keeping the viability of the project in view, the opposite party offered him 1.5% and not 10% and ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.