Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Appeal bearing Nos. FA/546/2014 and FA/967/2014 since been arisen out of the same Order dated 25-03-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Cooch Behar in CC/48/2013, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order. Incidentally, by such order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the case.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, he took agency of the OP No. 1 Company.  However, when he faced difficulty to run the said agency, he returned all unsold goods to the OPs.  However, the OPs did not return the amount lying with them to the Complainant, hence the complaint.

The OPs firstly disputed the maintainability of the case and also called in question the status of the Complainant as a consumer.  The OPs further disputed the competence of the Ld. District Forum to adjudicate the case on the ground that they did not have any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Also, it was contended by the OPs that the dispute was purely civil in nature and therefore, the case was not maintainable under the 1986 Act.  They denied all the material allegation of the Complainant.

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Admittedly, the Complainant took agency of the OPs for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  Since he was an agent, there was no question of hiring the services of the OPs by him, but it was totally vice versa.  Thereby, he could not be considered as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Another important aspect of this case is that, he used to purchase goods from the OPs for the purpose of reselling the same.  In terms of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, a person who obtains goods for re-sale cannot be considered as a consumer.  From this angle too, the Complainant was not a consumer.

Aforesaid findings make it clear that the instant complaint was not at all maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  By admitting the case first and then adjudicating the same, seemingly, the Ld. District Forum committed grave jurisdictional error and thus, the same is not sustainable in law.

The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

Appeal Nos. FA/546/2014 and FA/967/2014 stand allowed and dismissed, respectively.  The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties do bear their respective costs.