BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 442/2003 Filed on 31.10.2003

Dated : 31.03.2009

Complainant:

Ravikrishnan N.R, Advocate, House No. 101, N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party:

R.M.P Infotech Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, R.M.P Infotech Ltd., branch office, Mosque Lane, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C.B. Mukundan)

This O.P having been heard on 25.03.2009, the Forum on 31.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The complaint in a nutshell is that the complainant had joined as distributor of the opposite party company by paying an amount of Rs. 4,990/-. At the time of joining, one has to select a product and accordingly one holiday package was selected as the product by the complainant. The complainant was told that the said holiday package for 4 days would be sent to him within 15 days. But even after repeated requests the complainant has not received the same till date and hence this complaint.

Opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as he is the distributor of the company and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party has admitted that the complainant had made a payment of Rs. 4,990/- towards distributorship of the opposite party company and they had sent the documents pertaining to the tour package to the complainant in the address given by the complainant, through courier service. But the same returned with endorsement 'address is not sufficient'. As the address provided by the complainant was insufficient, the holiday package did not reach the complainant, for which there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties have filed their affidavits. One witness has been examined as PW1 on behalf of the complainant. Exts. P1 to P3 were marked for the complainant. Opposite party had no documentary evidence.

On the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant can be considered as a consumer as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

    

Point (i):- One of the main contentions raised by the opposite party is that, as the complainant is the distributor of the business transaction of the opposite party, the complainant would not come under the definition of a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, the complainant had joined the opposite party company as a distributor of the company by paying an amount of Rs. 4,990/-. The complainant himself has admitted that incentives are given to the distributors and the holiday tour package is the product selected by the complainant at the time of joining the business. PW1 has deposed that “RMP ശരിക്കും ഒരു business package ആണ്. Distributor company-യില്‍ നിന്ന് പ്രതിഫലം കിട്ടുന്ന ആളാണ് ”. From the above, it is clear that the complainant has not hired any service of the opposite party as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the complainant who has joined as a distributor would be making profit out of it after joining the same. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the complainant has joined the opposite party as distributor and intended to select the product under self employment or for eking his livelihood. The complainant has pleaded that he is an advocate. Hence this business is not for earning his livelihood. Under this circumstance, as the complainant has joined as the distributor for making profit and as there is purchase of goods and resale is involved in it, we cannot hold that the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum could entertain the complaint only if the complainant was a consumer. Hence the complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable before the Forum with liberty to the complainant to seek the remedy if any before the appropriate authority.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 31^st March 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 442/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Johnson Idayaranmula

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of advocate notice dated 18.09.2003.

P2 - Postal receipt dated 19.09.2003.

P3 - Photocopy of registration certificate dated June 13, 2003.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT