Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 22.10.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum,Gurgaon whereby complaint bearing No.490 of 2000 of Ashok Kumar Mishra, respondent/complainant was allowed and OP was directed to clear the dues of the complainant within one month after receipt of copy of the order. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant used to do job work of OP as per their order at the agreed rate of Rs.13/- per piece and OP had been making payment of the job done on the basis of bills submitted by him. During 1989-99 the complainant submitted bills of Rs.30245/- for payment against which OP issued a cheque of Rs.14224/- on 31.3.2000 but when he presented the cheque for encashment the same could not be cleared as the payment was stopped by OP. Thereafter, complainant requested OP to make payment of the outstanding dues but they put him off on one pretext or the other and finally on 8.5.2000 they refused to make the payment of outstanding dues without assigning any reason. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum at Gurgaon seeking direction to OP to make payment of Rs.30245/- alongwith interest @ 24% besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account financial loss and agony suffered by him. 4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the payment of bills for the job work done by the complainant was rejected as he had not done job work as per specifications required by the company and the amount of Rs.30245/- was not outstanding against them. The amount whatever became due was paid and the payment of cheque was stated to be stopped as excess payment was wrongly made to the complainant and the matter was settled between them. The maintainability of the complaint was challenged on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature as complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as envisaged under Section-2(d) of consumer Protection Act. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order , opposite party had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 6. Today when the case was fixed for hearing arguments, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant. On the previous dates also he remained absent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The sole point of arguments raised by the counsel for appellant is that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter as complainant had not hired or availed any services for a consideration so he does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant. Here in the instant case complainant is not proved to have hired or availed any service for consideration from OP in the capacity of a ‘service provider’, rather it is vice-versa. OP had given some job work to the complainant for which he was being paid amount at the agreed rate but thereafter some dispute arose between the parties with regard to the job done and payment etc. In this view of the matter, complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, learned counsel for OP today has placed on file a copy of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Gurgaon before whom complainant claimed himself to be an employee of the OP. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 22.10.2001 passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and same is accordingly set aside. Hence, the appeal is accepted and consequently complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, complainant would be at liberty to knock at the door of the competent court having jurisdiction in the matter for seeking his relief, if any, in accordance with law. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
