Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Judicial Member

1.       This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was summarily dismissed at the stage of admission.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

2.       Complainant/appellant resident of Navi Mumbai had alleged that there had been vacancy for the post of ‘Electrical Foreman’ in the company known as ‘BECHTEL’ company.  Said company had engaged O.P.nos.1&2 –Sinclus Management Services & Sinclus Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd., Andheri(E), Mumbai as its recruiting agency.  O.P.no.3-Mohammdi Healthcare Systems was engaged by O.P.nos.1&2 for taking medical examination.  According to complainant, he was interviewed by the officers of ‘BECHTEL’ company and was selected for the post of ‘Electrical Foreman’ at Angola, South Africa.  The complainant was however, directed by opposite party nos.1&2 to appear before the opposite party no.3 for medical test and examination.  Accordingly, he had undergone medical test and O.P.no.3 ultimately found complainant to be unfit.  According to complainant/appellant herein he had in the past worked with different companies from 1982-2009 and was never found physically unfit and, thus, the examination and report submitted by opposite party no.3 declaring complainant as unfit was incorrect and improper and there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Complainant therefore filed consumer complaint seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from opposite party nos.1&2 and Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party no.3, since he lost an opportunity to get an employment at Angola in South Africa. 

3.       When complaint came up before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mumbai Suburban at Bandra for admission, it was pleased to hold that the ‘BECHTEL’ company had selected the complainant on the basis of interview, but complainant was not given any appointment letter by ‘BECHTEL’ company. Status of the complainant vis-à-vis ‘BECHTEL’ company was that of candidate seeking employment through recruiting agency of O.P.nos.1&2.  Complainant had not paid any consideration either to ‘BECHTEL’ company or to O.P.nos.1&2.  Admittedly, he had not paid any consideration to O.P.no.3-Mohammdi Healthcare Systems.  So there was no relationship of ‘consumer’ on one hand and O.P.nos.1 to 3 as ‘service provider’ on the other hand.  It was argued on behalf of the complainant before the forum below that complainant had tried to satisfy the forum below by stating that complainant was beneficiary of ‘BECHTEL’ company (employer), who must have paid consideration to the O.Ps.  Forum below however turned down this plea on the ground that ‘BECHTEL’ company was not party to the present complaint and the company was not service provider for the complainant. There was employment offer by ‘BECHTEL’ company subject to his being found physically fit.  Forum below also noted that since he had not paid consideration to O.P.nos.1&2 or O.P.no.3, for that matter, who had conducted tests on behalf of ‘BECHTEL’ company or at the instance of recruiting companies O.P.nos.1&2, complainant cannot be said to be a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the circumstances, forum below found that there was no ex-facie merit in the complaint against three opponents and, therefore, by passing 4 paged order, the said complaint was summarily dismissed at the stage of admission itself on 15/4/2010 in consumer complaint no.20/2010.  Aggrieved by the said order, original complainant has filed this appeal.

4.       We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Y.R.Singh for the appellant.  Obviously none was present for the respondent since at the very initial stage of admission, we are disposing of this appeal it being groundless. 

5.       Mr.Y.R.Singh –the Learned Advocate tried to argue before us that complainant was a candidate selected by ‘BECHTEL’ company and at the instance of employer-O.P.nos.1&2 recruiting agency asked him to approach O.P.no.3 for medical examination and test.  O.P.no.3 on conducting test had declared him unfit though his original disease was already cured and there was no unfitness of any kind in his case, still O.P.no.3 company had declared him unfit after examination.

6.       What is pertinent to note is the fact that Mohammdi Healthcare Systems –respondent no.3 at page no.50 has given details of investigation and found that x-ray was abnormal in respect of appellant and it was further mentioned that old healed kochs lesion was found and, therefore, he was declared unfit. Accordingly, the appellant did not get employment. 

7.       What is significant to note is the fact that recruiting agency –respondent nos.1&2 and Mohammdi Healthcare Systems has to abide by international standards while recruiting Indians fit for a particular job.  They must be academically qualified as well as they must be physically fit.  The complainant was found to be unfit by respondent no.3 as per international standards.  As rightly observed by the forum below, he had not paid any consideration either to respondent nos.1&2 or to respondent no.3 for examining him medically.  When there was no payment made by the appellant to either of the three respondents, they cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service at the instance of appellant herein. Complainant was not a consumer either of respondent nos.1&2-rectruiting agency or respondent no.3 –Mohammdi Healthcare Systems, because he had not paid any consideration for undergoing test to respondent no.3 or had made any payment to respondent nos.1 and 2 for getting employment somewhere in abroad.  In the circumstances, services rendered by respondent nos.1 to 3 were rendered to ‘BECHTEL’ company and not to complainant and since he had not paid single pie to either of the three respondents, he cannot be permitted to file consumer complaint against them for alleged deficiency in service. In fact on going through the papers presented in the appeal memo, we are finding that Mohammdi Healthcare Systems rightly taken various tests and had opined that the appellant herein was unfit for the job at abroad.  In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the forum below dismissing complaint at the threshold stage is appearing to be just, proper and sustainable in law. There appears to be no merit in the appeal preferred by aggrieved complainant. In the circumstances, we pass following order:-

                                                ORDER

1.     Appeal stands summarily rejected.

2.     No order as to costs.

3.     Inform the parties accordingly.