ORDER 08th August 2018
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 22/06/2018 alleging that on 16/07/2015 at about 10: 15 PM the complainant while going to Okhla from his home on motorcycle stopped at OP’s petrol pump where two boys who were standing ahead of him were not moving their bike even after getting the fuel filled and when the complainant asked them to remove their motorcycle one of the boys started slapping complainant due to which he fell down and the second boy attacked him with sharp object due to which blood started oozing
from his head and the boys fled from the spot. The complainant further alleged that the staff of the OP present on the spot remain mute spectators and did not come forward for his help. Complainant further alleged that he made a call on No. 100 and got registered an FIR. Complainant further alleged that the OP being the Owner/ Proprietor of the retail outlet was duty bound to provide the security to the customer visiting his retail outlet and he has failed in his duty in providing the security which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant sent a legal notice to OP on 10/04/2017 reply of which has been received by complainant on 27/04/2017. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the complainant prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- (Four Lacs Fifty Thousand) for not providing security to the complainant resulting the injury sustained by him and Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) as cost of litigation.
Heard on the maintainability of the complaint and perused the file and the documents placed on the record.
Before adverting to the facts of the present complaint we would like to reproduce section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which defines the term ‘consumer’ to the extent it is relevant which reads as under :-
‘’Consumer’’ means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
In the present complaint the complainant has alleged that he had visited the OP for getting the fuel but has not placed on record any receipt of the fuel taken by him from the OP Company in order to establish that he is a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. During the course of arguments counsel for complainant has stated that the complainant has not taken any fuel from OP Company as before taking the same one of the two boys who were standing ahead of him started slapping the complainant and the other attacked with sharp object. On bare perusal of the definition of the
term ‘Consumer’, Consumer is a person who buys any goods, hire or purchase
service for consideration which has been paid and promised to be paid or partly paid and partly promised to be paid or under any system of deferred payment
From the facts of the complaint mentioned above complainant has not proved that he bought or availed the services of the OP and therefore complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
In support of his Complaint Counsel for complainant has relied upon the Judgement of the National Commission in appeal no. 2488/2017 in State Bank of India Vs. Swapan Paul decided on 18/04/2018 the facts of which are that the complainant/respondent was having an account with the Petitioner State Bank of India when the complainant sustained serious injury on account of gun-shot fired by security guard employed by the bank. The present case is not applicable to the case in hand as complainant at no point of time bought/availed the service of the OP.
In view of the discussion above the instant complaint is dismissed as complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be given to the complainant as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 8th Day of August 2018.
