NATANI ENTERPRISES Vs. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the dismissal of the complaint by order dated 10.9.91 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.938/90 the unsuccessful complainant has filed this appeal. It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail which have led to this appeal. Suffice it to state that the complainant- appellant filed a complaint against the opposite party-respondent praying that a sum of Rs.12,000/- together with interest @ 15% may be ordered to be paid to the complainant as remuneration for the service for acting as advertising agency. Besides this a sum of Rs.5,000/- was claimed as damages and costs. A direction for adjustment of the previous work measuring 1053 cm. in future was also sought An application was invited by the opposite party in December, 1986 from persons acting as advertising agency. The complainant submitted an application and sanction was given. The complainant started working in January, 1987 and worked upto December, 1987 and according to the complainant the work done by it was satisfactory. The complainant was notable to do work on account of adverse circumstances from January, 1988. It has been alleged that from January, 1987 to December, 1987 advertisement of 1053 cm. were given but remuneration/consideration of the work was not paid. According to the complainant for the advertising work of 1053 cm. the amount comes to Rs.80,000/- and its commission 15% comes to Rs, 12,000/- which the complainant is entitled. to get. Certain other facts were stated in the complaint in para 13 of the complaint. However the complaint was filed as stated above for the reliefs mentioned above. In support of that Shri Govind Das submitted his affidavit.

(2.) The opposite party-respondent refuted the claim filed by the complainant and raised various objections but keeping in view the findings arrived at by the District Forum, Jaipur and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we need not mention the defence taken in detail. However the opposite party under the head additional pleas raised an objection that the complaint cannot be heard by a Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) for the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and further that he has not hired the services for consideration from the opposite party. Factum of payment of commission was also denied on the ground that no terms and conditions were settled nor any agreement or contract was executed between the parties. The opposite party submitted photostat copies of the various letters. On 4.9.91 the District Forum heard the arguments on the question of jurisdiction and thereafter it passed the impugned order on 10.9.91. The District Forum in the impugned order has categorically come to the conclusion that there is no consumer dispute involved between the parties and, therefore, there is no question of defective or deficient service of the opposite party. It, therefore, declined to grant reliefs under Sec.14 (1) of the Act. However in para 5 of the order appealed against the District Forum has stated that there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint; and ata MAH PARIVAD GUN DOSH PAR UKAT PARKAR SE KHARIJ KIYA JATA HAI

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant construed this as dismissal of the complaint on merits. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also considered the complaint, version of the case and the order appealed against with requisite care in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant as nobody has appeared to oppose the appeal on behalf of the respondent. The dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, Jaipur was based on two grounds: , (1) that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined in Sec.2 (l) (d) of the Act and; (2) that the reliefs prayed for by the complainant in the complaint cannot be granted by a Redressal Forum under Sec.14 (1) of the Act.