MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH Vs. ABID QUADIR MANAGER TIBBIYA COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was presented in the registry by Mohammad Abdullah on 8.1.96 praying for a direction that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.13,65,400/- with interest @ 18% from 30.1.79 to 20.4.93 and till the payment is made along with compound interest thereon. He has also prayed for a direction that Rs.15,000/- be paid as compensation for his approach and efforts made during the period from 20.4.93 to 2.9.95 along with interest @ 18%, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and the cost of the proceedings.

(2.) The case of the complainant, as alleged, is for recovery of commission charges of Rs.10,65,000/- @ 15% interest for the order supplied through him for a period from 30.1.79 to 30.4.92 out of which he was paid Rs.5,000/- and the balanceof Rs.5,65,000/- remained to be paid. He has claimed on this balance of Rs.5,65,000/- a commission of Rs.1,50,000/- interest @ 18% Rs.1,30,000/-, and compound interest from 30.3.79 to 20.4.93 Rs.1,30,000/- and also compensation of Rs.3,90,400/- for 70 rounds taken by him to collect his amount of commission during the period from 20.3.79 to 20.2.92. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party entered into an agreement with the complainant for engaging him as tourist and agent for seeking the supply orders for the opposite party on a commission of 15% but he was not paid the commission for the period 30.1.89 to 20.4.93 as alleged above and thereby opposite party has violated the terms and conditions of the con tract and therefore, he as a compulsion moved this complaint before this Commission for a direction for payment of the balance of the commission along with interest and other reliefs as already mentioned above. In para one and six of the complaint the complainant has admitted that the opposite party in order to avoid the payment of the commission to the complainant has falsely instituted a suit in the District Court, Aligarh.

(3.) On the very face of the reading of the complaint it appears a case of recovery of the commission amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of a contract between the complainant and the opposite party which does not appear to be a 'consumer' dispute. On this issue the learned Counsel Mr. S. C. Awasthi for the complainant sought adjournment on 30.10.96, 1.11.96 and 21.11.96 and again on 27.11.96 to show law on the point whether the dispute alleged in the complaint for recovery of commission in terms of the agreement is a 'consumer dispute' as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the question of the jurisdiction of the two Members of the State Commission in the absence of the President, who has gone abroad, to hear, decide and sign the order in disposal of the complaint. But on 29.11.96 for which this case was adjourned for preliminary hearing xxx no one appeared on behalf of the complainant nor any application for adjournment has been received. Therefore, we have reserved the order to be given later on when we look into this matter ourselves.