Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground of deficiency in service seeking damages of Rs.50,000=00 from Opposite Parties 1 & 2. <br /> <br /> 2. Notices were duly served to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. They have appeared and contested the matter seriously. The Complainant has filed as many as 14 documents supported by his affidavit. Both Opposite Parties have also filed the respective affidavits and produced Xerox copies of the documents. Heard the Learned Counsels for both sides.<br /> <br /> 3. This Complaint can be disposed only on the question of maintainability and jurisdiction. For that reason, the facts which are contended by the Complainant are not mentioned at length.<br /> <br /> 4. The case of the Complainant in brief is as hereunder:<br /> The Complainant and his wife became member of 2nd Opposite Party and got ID Card No.19100140. The Complainant became member of 2nd Opposite Party as requested by 1st Opposite Party. On 08.04.2003, the Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3,000=00 bearing No.315481 drawn on Andhra Bank, Narayana Shastry Road, Mysore. He placed an Order with Opposite Parties for supply of “Conybio Health Care” material for treatment to his legs. But such material was not supplied by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant addressed a letter to the Opposite Parties on 28.12.2004 followed the remainder dated 10.01.2005. The reply given by 2nd Opposite Party will disclose that the material was handed over to representatives name Mr.Peter Jacob and Mumtaz Begum. Inspite of further correspondence, the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver the material. Such act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has claimed compensation for mental agony etc., to the tune of Rs.50,000=00, with cost.<br /> <br /> 5. It is contended by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 the Complainant is not a “CONSUMER” has defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. It is contended that the case is hopelessly barred by time as the original transaction and Order was dated 08.04.2003. This Complaint is filed on 02.02.2006 i.e., the beyond period of 2 years. Hence, not maintainable. <br /> <br /> 6. It is contended by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant submitted an application seeking “Independent Distributorship” for marketing the products of 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant has also executed an Agreement in this respect. On the basis of such Agreement, identification Cards were issued to Complainant and his wife bearing No.1900146. As per this Agreement, there is no relationship of a Service-Provider between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. Hence, this Complaint is misconceived and not maintainable. <br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended that the Complainant was introduced to 1st Opposite Party by one Peter Jacob and Smt Mumtaz Begum. After seeking Distributorship, the Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3,000=00 dated 08.04.2003. “Conybio Health Care India Private Limited” is multi level marketing system. The Complainant had entered the multi level marketing system to earn profit in the form of bonus depending on the development of team distributors. The Complainant was introduced by an Independent Distributor named Mrs.Zaitunnisa. The 1st Opposite Party never agreed to deliver the product through his Office representatives. For the above reasons, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissing the Complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> 8. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant is a “CONSUMER” and this Complaint is maintainable?<br /> 2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?<br /> 4. If so, to what relief he is entitled?<br /> <br /> 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. Points No.1 & 2:- Negative.<br /> 2. Points No.3 & 4 does not arise for our consideration.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 10. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The Complainant has relied on the I.D Card which was supplied to him and contended that he became member of 2nd Opposite Party as requested by 1st Opposite Party. But the ID Card clearly shows that it was neither a Membership, nor a Subscription. It is noted on the Card that it was “DISTRIBUTORS ID CARD”, on the backside of the Card, it is clearly mentioned that the person named in this Card is an “Authorised Independent Distributor”. It is also mentioned that, he was appointed as Distributor subject to Terms and Conditions of Agreement. This document clearly indicates that the Complainant is neither a Subscriber nor a Consumer of Opposite Parties 1 & 2.<br /> <br /> 11. The 1st Opposite Party has produced Xerox copy of the application submitted by the Complainant seeking distributorship, as well as Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. This document is not disputed by the Complainant. It is clearly mentioned that one Zaitunnisa had introduced, the Complainant to the institution of 2nd Opposite Party. It is further mentioned in this Application Form that the Complainant had accepted the Terms and Conditions, which are printed on the backside of such Application Form. On perusal of the Terms and Conditions, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the Complainant was appointed as “Authorised Independent Distributor” and he was entitled for monthly bonus on the basis of turnover. <br /> <br /> 12. The word “Consumer” has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who is either a purchaser of any goods for consideration; or hirer of any service for a consideration. The Complainant being an independent distributor cannot claim the benefit of the “CONSUMER” as defined under the said Act.<br /> <br /> 13. It is the case of the Complainant that he has not received the goods from Smt Mumtaz Begum or Peter Jacob. If this is the real fact, the dispute between the parties is a Civil dispute and cannot be decided by the Consumer Court. The 1st Opposite Party has produced even “Bonus Statement” for the year 2003-04. The Complainant got the bonus of Rs.105=60. This confirms the status of Complainant. <br /> <br /> 14. For the foregoing reasons, we come to conclusion that the Complainant is not a “CONSUMER” and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. So, points No.1 & 2 are answered in negative. <br /> <br /> 15. POINTS NO.3 & 4: In view of our finding on points No.1 and 2 there is no need to consider the question of deficiency in service. So, points No.3 & 4 are answered. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following Order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is not a “Consumer”, and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br />