Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Adv. A. S. Vidyarthi is present on behalf of the Appellant/ Insurance Company. Adv. Rumi H. Mirza is present on behalf of the Respondent. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/04/2008, passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.1033 of 2003, Geometric Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Complaining that the insurance company failed to pay 15% commission, which was promised while taking the insurance policy for its employees by the Respondent/original Complainant, said commission is sought to be recovered alleging that a consumer dispute arose and a consumer complaint is filed accordingly. Said consumer complaint stood decreed in favour of the Respondent/original Complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company. [3] We have carefully gone through the statements made in the complaint itself. No evidence as such in terms of Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is adduced and the parties rely upon the facts which are not in dispute. [4] It is tried to be submitted on behalf of the Respondent/ original Complainant before us that the Appellant/Insurance Company induced the Respondent/original Complainant to purchase insurance policy for its employees on offering 15% commission on the premium paid, and therefore, non-payment of such commission amounts to unfair trade practice and it is a consumer dispute, and therefore, impugned order passed is proper. [5] Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submitted that such type of dispute cannot be a ‘consumer dispute’. [6] ‘Unfair trade practice’ is well-defined under Section-2(1)(r) of the Act. Looking to the grievance raised in this matter and more particularly, looking to the statements/averments made in the complaint itself, a dispute arose for not refunding the amount being discount of 15% premium for the year 2000-01 (also stated as commission promised), which is calculated at `3,38,945.10ps. Prayer clause (a) in the consumer complaint reads as under:- “That this Hon’ble Forum be pleased to pass an award directing the respondent to pay to the complainants the sum of Rs.3,38,945.10ps. being the 15% discount/commission, which they are entitled to under the said mediclaim and personal accident policies together with interest thereon @ 18% p. a. from 1st April 2001 till payment or realization.” [7] Considering this fact, it is an action simplicitor for recovery of commission amount which remained unpaid. It is an action for a money suit and not a ‘consumer dispute’. No such relief could be granted for absence of any ‘hiring of service’ element on the part of the insurance company, within the four corners of Section-14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Certainly, it is not an ‘unfair trade practice’ on the basis of which an action could be brought as a ‘consumer dispute’. We find that without considering this particular aspect and empowerment of the Forum within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; the Forum reached at an erroneous conclusion. Thus, holding accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 30/April/2008, passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.1033 of 2003 stands set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pronounced & dictated on 9th August, 2011. | 
