JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The complainant/ respondent purchased food articles from the store of the respondent Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. The said food articles were allegedly found to be insect infested. The vegetables which he had purchased from the aforesaid store was allegedly found to be rotten. This is also the case of the complainant that having consumed the aforesaid food articles, he and his family members fell ill and had to incur substantial expenditure on their treatment. He requested the petitioner Food Safety Commissioner of Kerala to take appropriate action against the seller of contaminated food articles under the provisions of Food Safety Act. No action, however, was taken. The complainant/respondent, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the sellers of the food articles as well as the Food Safety Commissioner as the opposite parties in the complaint. 2. The petitioner filed its reply before the concerned District Forum contesting the complaint and took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not its consumer and had not hired or availed its services. On merits, the petitioner alleged that on analysis of the samples taken by its officers, no hazardous content endangering human life was found though a few shortcomings in the standard were noticed. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.3.2014 allowed the complaint not only against the seller of the goods but also against the petitioner. The seller of the goods were directed to pay the compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh whereas the petitioner was directed to pay the compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. The term consumer has been defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act to mean a person who either purchases the goods from another person or hires or avails his services. Admittedly, the alleged contaminated goods were purchased by the complainant from the store of Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. without involvement of the petitioner. No consideration was paid by the complainant to the petitioner nor did he hire or avail its services. In taking action in terms of the Food Safety Act, the petitioner performs its statutory obligations and does not render service to a person who buys goods from a private person. No element of rendering services as understood in the context of Consumer Protection Act is involved in performance of the said statutory obligations. Therefore, neither the complainant can be said to be the consumer of the petitioner nor was there any scope for awarding compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act against the petitioner, on account of the alleged failure to take appropriate action in terms of the Food Safety Act against the seller of the alleged contaminated goods. If the petitioner had failed to perform its statutory obligations under the Food Safety Act despite receipt of complaint from the complainant, the appropriate remedy for the complainant was to approach the concerned High Court by way of a writ petition and a consumer complaint against the petitioner was entirely misconceived. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders to the extent they pertain to the petitioner - Food Safety Commissioner are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed only against the petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that dismissal of the complaint qua the petitioner will not come in the way of the complainant availing such remedy other than filing a consumer complaint as may be available to him in law against the petitioner. 7. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules. | 
