DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2024.

Present : Sri Vinay Menon .V, President.

: Smt. Vidya A., Member.

               : Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.

                                                                     Date of filing: 28/12/2023                                               

CC/354/2023

          Raghavan.K,         

          K.S.F.E Chitty Commission Agent,                - Complainant

          Akshaya, K.V.Road,

          Palappuram P.O, Ottappalam Taluk,

          Palakkad Dist.-679 103.

          (Party-in-Person)                                

Vs

1.       The Assistant General Manager (Business),

          K.S.F.E, Bhadratha, Museum Road,

          P.B.No.510, Thrissur-680 020.                      - Opposite Parties

2.       The Branch Manager,

          K.S.F.E, Ottapalam-679 101.

ORDER

By Smt.Vidya A., Member.

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The complainant is working as a Chitty Agent in the Ottappalam Branch of the OP.  One Mr. Muhammed Rasheed subscribed to the Chitty which started on 06.07.2023 with a total sala of Rs.5 lakhs with Rs.1 lakh as monthly instalment through the complainant.  In this Chitty, the cheque issued towards the first instalment was returned due to “insufficient fund”.  But the Chittal cleared two instalments by paying Rs.1,75,000/- on 06.08.2023 itself.  He had already paid 6 instalments till December, 2023.

But the OP had not given the Commission to the complainant for the reason that the Agent is not entitled to get the Commission if the cheque issued towards the first instalment is returned.

2. The case was posted for hearing on maintainability issue.  Complainant was present in person.  The complainant in this case is

not a ‘consumer’ as per the definition in Sec.2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite parties have not rendered any service to the complainant and the complainant has not paid any consideration to the opposite parties.  The complainant is working as an agent of the opposite parties and earning commission out of his work.  So, he cannot be termed as a ‘consumer’ within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 12^th day of January, 2024.

                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                    Vinay Menon .V,

   President.

        Sd/-

                                                                                  Vidya .A,

                                                                                Member.