IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT(I/C)                           SMT. C.RENUKAMBA

1. This complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to the opposite party to release the pay of the outstanding commission amount to the complainant together with interest from 2009 till date, directing the opposite parties jointly liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this proceedings.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is one among the authorized pigmy collectors of the opposite parties and working as a pigmy collector since past ten years.  The complainant is known for his sincerity in his assigned job while without any blemishes whatsoever and it is the only source of income to the complainant for earning his livelihood therefore he is a consumer

3. As per the directions of the opposite parties has been providing credit facilities to its customers through various schemes.  While granting every loan, opposite parties are expected to take adequate care to protect the interests of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties at the outset is expected to follow all the necessary formalities while disbursing the loan as stipulated by law.

4. The complainant is entitled to get commission on the basis of the amount collected by him through the customers of the opposite parties.  The aforesaid commission amount is the hard earned money, which the complainant is entitled for having collected pigmy from the customers.  The complainant puts in about 16 hours of work a day throughout the week irrespective of the variations in climate conditions prevailing in Kodagu.

5. The complainant is neither the borrower nor a co-obligant or a guarantor for any of the loans disbursed by the opposite parties to any of the customers, including for the once recommended by the complainant.  The opposite parties have illegally adjusted commission towards the outstanding loans of his their customers.

6. It is pertinent to note that, mere “recommendation” shall not be deemed to have any legal obligations on the part of the complainant to clear the liabilities of the customers of the opposite parties.  Thus, the opposite parties are illegally withholding the commission amount owed to the complainant since June 2019, which solely belong to the complainant.

7. The conduct of the opposite parties clearly reveals the malafide intentions to make unlawful gains using the dominant positions and thereby frustrate and humiliate the complainant.

8. The complainant frustrated by the inaction of the opposite parties, has got issued a legal notice dated 21-09-2020 to the opposite parties, calling upon the opposite parties to remit the outstanding commission amount within 15 days from the date of the notice.  The said notice was duly served to the opposite parties.  Inspite of the service of the notice, the opposite parties even to this date, have neither bothered to respond nor comply with the demands made therein.

9. The complainant has handed over the pigmy handheld machine to the second of the opposite parties on 31/12/2020.  The second opposite parties instead of realizing its responsibility has sent a memo dated 04/1/2021 addressed to the complainant.  Calling him to report back to duties as a pigmy agent, while threatening the complainant with coercive action on failing to heed to the indecorous demands of the opposite parties.

10. Deeply organized by the disgraceful behavior of the opposite parties, the complainant has sent a reply dated 25/01/2021. 

11. The complainant has undergone severe mental agony and hardship through the inhuman conduct of the opposite parties.  The complainant estimates the cost of mental agony and hardship at Rs.25,000/-, which the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant.  In addition, the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of this proceedings to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

12. After service of notice to opposite parties, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their version as under;

13. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under law and facts of the case.  That the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is true that complainant is one of the pigmy collectors of the opposite parties.  It is true that complainant is working under opposite parties since past fifteen years.

14. It is true that complainant is enable to get commission on the basis of amount collected by him through the customers and the complainant is put to strict proof of the other averments.  The other allegations made against the opposite parties are not true and complaint is put to strict proof of the same.

15. The opposite parties submits that complainant is appointed as an agent to collect the pigmy deposits on daily basis from the public for which he is entitled 3.00% commission.  The relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is that of agent and principal.  As such complainant cannot exhaust his remedies before this commission.  He has to seek remedies under other jurisdictional Forms and some other Acts.

16. It is submitted that as per the norms, out of commission earned by the complainant 10% goes security deposit and 3.75% towards TDS is deducted and at the end of every Financial year the amount so collected in the Security Deposit is converted into Fixed Deposit and each amount carries higher rate of interest.

17. It is submitted that on the recommendation of Pigmy Agent, customers are given maximum advance of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan and collected amount will be adjusted towards the loan borrowed by the customers.  The loan will be given only on the recommendation of the Pigmy Agent as he know status, repayment capacity of the customers and it is the duty of the Pigmy Agent to collect the loan amount.

18. It is submitted that the complainant in this case has recommended number of customers for availing loan.  That due to non repayment of loan by the customers NPA will be increased and opposite parties are unable to run their business.  It is submitted that the meeting dated 31-7-2019 by the opposite parties and Pigmy Agents it has been resolved that to hold 50% of their collection till the NPA’s are cleared.  This complainant is also attended to the said meeting and not raised any objections and agreed for the same.

19. It is submitted that the complainant in this case has recommended  number of customers for availing loan.  That due to non repayment of loan by the customers NPA will be increased and opposite parties are unable to run their business.  In some cases the complainant willfully and negligently collected the loan amount.  It is submitted that the meeting 31-07-2019 by the opposite parties and pigmy Agents it has been resolved that to hold 50% of their collections till the NPA’s are cleared.  This complainant is also attended to the said meeting and not raised any objections and agreed for the same.

20. The complaint is bad for non mentioning of the amount of commission by the complainant and on any other angle the complaint is not maintainable and it should be dismissed with limine.

21. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

22. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence  as PW-1 with several documents marked exhibit C-1 to C-7 and the written arguments and addressed oral arguments.  Opposite party filed his affidavit evidence  as RW-1 and documents marked as Ex-R1 to R-7 and the written arguments and addressed oral arguments.  Hence the matter posted for orders.

23. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer, the complainant proves the  dispute is a consumer dispute under section 2(7) of C.P Act 2019?
2. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought ?
3. What order ?

24. Our findings on the above points are as under;
    1. Point No.1&2 :- In the Negative
    2. Point No.3:- As per the final order for the        

following ;

R E A S O N S

25. Point No.1:- We have carefully gone through the records, complaint averments, affidavit of complainant, documents produced by him and notes of arguments and the version of opposite parties and notes of arguments and affidavit.

26. The complainant has been working as a Pigmy collector for the opposite parties Bank since fifteen years , this fact is admitted by opposite parties also.  After thorough verification of the documents rendered, it is observed that as per section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2(7) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act,2019 hires or avails of any service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose”.

The complainant cannot be a called as a consumer in this instant case.

27. The opposite parties bank gives MUDRA loan to the persons who wishes to opposite party MUDRA scheme, based on this persons who obtain loan, deposit pigmies to the bank agreeing in terms and conditions of the scheme.  Here complainant work is to make the customers pay the pigmies to the bank, whenever he makes them to pay the pigmy he is paid commission only on such payments from the bank.  Therefore, it is clear that the persons who obtain loan from the opposite parties bank are the consumers to the opposite parties bank and not the complainant. It is observed that you have agreed to the terms and conditions laid by the bank during your agreement with bank as a pigmy collector.  You have undertaken that, you will make the customers to repay the loan to the bank.  You will receive the commission from the bank as and when such loans are repaid by the customers from time to time only on making customers to repay the loan you will receive commission from the bank.  You have agreed to all these terms and conditions of the bank before and joining as a pigmy collector.  Now, you cannot allege that bank as caused deficiency in service, because you receive commission only on rendering service to bank.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  One who receives consideration has to render proper service. Here complainant has not received any services from opposite parties bank.  Hence he is not a consumer.

28. Therefore, as per section 2(7) of consumer protection Act, 2019 this is not a consumer, and dispute is not Consumer Disputes.  Complainant is not eligible to claim any compensation from opposite parties bank under deficiency in service.  Based in the above facts this complaint is not maintainable.  Hence accordingly point no.1 & 2 is answered in the Negative.

29. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations in point no.1 complaint is dismissed.  Hence, the following ;

O R D E R

1. The complaint of complainant is hereby dismissed.  No cost.
2. Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 22^nd  DAY OF APRIL, 2022)

               (GOWRAMMANNI)                         (RENUKAMBA.C)                                                      

                       MEMBER                              PRESIDENT(I/C)  

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant

CW-1-  Sri. P. Madhusudan (Complainant)

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant

Ex.C-1 : Office copy of the legal notice Dt:4/9/2020

Ex.C-2: Notarized copy of the notice Dt:22/10/2020

Ex.C-3:Notarized copy of the notice Dt:9/11/2020

Ex.C-4:Notarized copy of the memo  dt:4/1/2021

Ex.C-5:Notarized copy of the show cause dt:19/1/2021

Ex.C-6: Notarized copy of the reply of the complaint Dt:25/1/2021

Ex.C-7: Notarized copy of the notice sent by the Ops Dt:15/3/2021

Witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite parties CW-1-  Smt. Lowly H.P, Branch Manager, KDCC Bank

Documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties

Ex.C-1 : Copy of the circular Dt:9/9/2015

Ex.C-2: Copy of the circular Dt:10/1/2017

Ex.C-3 : Copy of the circular Dt:23/5/2017

Ex.C-4:- Copy of the circular Dt:16/1/2019

Ex.C-5:- Meeting notice and resolutions dated 23/8/2019

Ex.C-6:- copy of the Circular dt:16/1/2019

Ex.C-7:-Statement of Account December2020

Dated:22/04/2022                               PRESIDENT(I/C)