PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 811 of 2013 dated 21.03.2014 arising out of order dated 03.09.2013 in complaint no. 68 of 2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2.     The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The State Government of Haryana through its Department of Social Justice and Empowerment had, on 19.11.2009, notified a scheme called Rajeev Gandhi Pariwar Beema Yojana (RGPBY) based on an insurance contract with respondent no.2 for the period 28.03.2008 to 27.03.2009 to provide compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for persons in the age group 18 to 60 years in case of death or permanent disability. The scheme was notified in continuation of notification dated 29.04.2007 and was effective from 01.04.2006. The husband of respondent no.1, Late Shri Mohan, died by suicide on 12.07.2007. As her claim for compensation under the scheme was not approved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent no. 2 and petitioners 1 and 2 under the RGPBY. The District Forum in its order dated 03.09.2013 in CC 68 of 2012 allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint within one month, failing which interest at 12% till realization. In appeal filed by respondent no. 2, the State Commission set aside the District Forum’s order on the ground that there was no insurance policy in existence at the time of the death of respondent no. 1’s husband thereby  making the respondent no. 2/insurance company not liable. The State Commission held the State Government liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% from filing till date of payment. This order has been impugned before us by the State Government through the District Social Welfare Officer, Rewari.

3.     The grounds of appeal are that the State Commission has erred in shifting the burden of payment on the State Government without adjudicating the maintainability of the proceedings before the Forum. It is contended that the respondent is not a ‘consumer’ under section 2(1) of the Act as there is no privity of contract. It is argued that merely because there was no insurance policy in place, liability could not be fastened upon petitioner no. 2. A welfare scheme of the State cannot make beneficiaries ‘consumers’ under the Act. As such the lower fora acted without jurisdiction without appreciating the provisions of the Act relating to ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer dispute’. Consequently, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law and liable to be set aside.

4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case. 

5.     It is an admitted fact that the State Government introduced a policy for compensation in case of permanent disability or death of persons between the ages of 18 and 60 in the State. It is not disputed that the husband of respondent no. 1 died on 12.07.2007. It is also not in dispute that the scheme of the government was linked to an insurance arrangement with respondent no. 2 for which the premium had been paid by the State. While both lower fora have held that respondent no. 1 be provided compensation, the issue before us whether the beneficiary of a government welfare scheme qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case it is funded through an arrangement of with an insurance policy.  

6.     It is relevant to consider the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at this stage. The aims and objectives of the Act are:

        STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.

2. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as-

(a)     the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;

(b)     the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;

(c)     the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of goods at competitive prices;

(d)     the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;

(e)     the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

(f)      right to consumer education.

A ‘consumer’ is defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Act as:

(d) “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 purpose];

(Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment]

        A ‘consumer dispute’ is defined as per section 2(e) as below:

“Means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint”

        ‘Service’ under the Act is defined in section 2(1) (o) as:

(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  [housing construction,] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; 

 [oo] "spurious goods and services" mean such goods and services which are claimed to be genuine but they are actually not so;]        

From a reading of these definitions, it is apparent that the key ingredient for a complaint to be considered a consumer complaint essentially requires that there be a relationship between two parties for the procurement of a good or service against a consideration through the instrument of a contract relating to performance of service or supply of good. In the instant case there is neither any such contract between the deceased Mohan and respondent no.2 or between respondent no.2 and the petitioner herein.

7.     As on the date of the demise of the husband of respondent no.1, there was no insurance policy in force which bound the deceased or his wife as a legal heir to the insurance company/respondent no.2. In fact there was no such policy in force between the government and the insurance company/respondent no. 2. It cannot be that all beneficiaries of governmental schemes are ‘consumers’ under the Act as there is some linkage either with the government or some organization under it or an insurance company that underwrites the scheme with budgetary support from the Consolidated Fund of India. These are domains beyond the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.      In view of the above, it is clear that respondent no.1/complainant does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ or ‘complainant’ as per the Act. In view of the fact that respondent no.1 is not a consumer who has procured any good or service for a consideration, the District Forum ought not to have considered the complaint filed before it. Since the complaint itself was void, ab initio, the order of the District Forum has to be considered non est. The appeal before the State Commission is also not maintainable for the same reason and has to be declared as one which does not lie. The orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot sustain. We accordingly find merit in the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal is not maintainable in view of there not being any privity of contract between the deceased or respondent no.1 as his legal heir with either respondent no.2 or with the petitioner no. 1.

9.    In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the fora below have erred in entertaining the complaint and the appeal respectively, both of which are not maintainable. The orders of the fora below are therefore without jurisdiction and illegal. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. Respondent no.1 is at liberty to pursue a remedy from the State Government/ petitioners if she so desires. No order as to costs.