IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER                           SMT. C.RENUKAMBA

1. This complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the commission amount withheld by them from June-2019 till the date to complainant, direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to their deficiency in service and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the 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 30 years. 

3. As per the directions of the first and second of the opposite parties, third of opposite parties has been providing credit facilities to its customers through various schemes.  While granting every loan, the third of the opposite parties is expected to take adequate care to protect the interests of the opposite party.  The third of the opposite party 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 in Kodagu.

5. As on 31-1-2019 a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- including security deposit and proceeds fixed deposits belonging to the complainant was with the opposite parties.  The complainant, through his letter dated 31-01-2019, has requested the third of the opposite parties to release at least Rs.2,50,000/- to his account, which has not yielded any results.

6. The third of the opposite parties has been harassing the complainant on day to day basis by pressurizing him to collect the over dues from the customers of the opposite parties during the visit of the complainant to the bank to remit the pigmy amount collected from the customers.

7. The complainant, through his letter dated 3-8-2019, has requested the third of the opposite parties to release the commission amount to his account, which too has not yielded any result. 

8. The complainant, through his letter dated 29-8-2019, has requested the second of the opposite parties to handover the resolution passed by the executive body of the opposite parties regarding deduction of commission, which too has been ignored.

9. The complainant, through his letter dated 02-01-2020, has requested the second of the opposite parties to release the commission withheld by the opposite parties, which too has been ignored.

10. The first of the opposite parties, through his letter dated 06-01-2020, has intimated the  complainant to participate in the review meeting scheduled on 10-01-2020.  However, the grievances of the complainant were ignored in the said meeting.

11. On 03-02-2020, the complainant received a letter through the third of the opposite parties, wherein it was mentioned that, the complainant is directed to collect a sum of Rs.6,42,000/- from the defaulting customers of the opposite parties, who were recommended by the complainant.  Such defaulting customers were never recommended by the complainant and the same was brought to the first of the opposite parties, way back through the letter dated 03-08-2019 of the complainant.

12. Earlier, the complainant has received a letter dated 29-06-2019 from the third of the opposite parties, claiming that, he is the guarantor for one Sri.K.S. Ravi, borrower, which is not correct.  In the similar manner, on 25-07-2017, the third of the opposite parties, has intimated the complainant that, the complainant was a guarantor for the loan of various defaulters of the opposite parties.  In the aid letter it was mentioned that, the commission of the complainant would be kept under suspense account.

13. To the utter surprise and dismay to the complainant, the third of the opposite parties, has been unlawfully withholding the commission of the complainant, inspite of the complainant having repeatedly approached the third of the opposite parties.  The third of the opposite parties has stated that the amount has been withheld as per the directions of first and second of the opposite parties.   Furthermore, third of the opposite parties has been withholding the commission amount owed to the complainant.  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 recommended by the complainant. 

14. It is pertinent to note that, mere “recommendation” shall in no way be construed to have any legal obligation on the part of the complainant o 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.

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

16. The complainant frustrated by the inaction of the opposite parties, has got issued a legal notice dated 08-06-2020 to the opposite parties, has got issued a legal notice dated 08-06-2020 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.

17. 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. 

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

19. 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 about 30 years.

20. 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

21. 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 3.50% 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. It is submitted that there are so many loans are out standing by the customers who are recommended by the pigmy agent including the complainant.  As such as per the resolution dated above, the commission of the complainant is remaining in suspense liability.  But at the request of the agents for the maintenance difficulty, to release some portion of the commission withheld.  Positively the 50% of the commission withheld from 31-07-2019 was released on 31-03-2020 and credited to their respective accounts.  When N.P.A.’s were closed, automatically the commission will be credited to the account of the complainant.

26. 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.

27. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence with several documents marked as exhibit P-1 to P-13 and the written arguments and addressed oral arguments.  Opposite part’s filed his affidavit evidence and documents marked as Ex-R1 to R-24 and the written arguments and addressed oral arguments.  Hence the matter posted for orders.

28. 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 ?

29. 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

30. 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.

31. The complainant has been working as a Pigmy collector for the opposite parties Bank since 30 years, this fact is admitted by opposite parties also.  After through verification of the documents rendered, it is observed that as per section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant cannot be a called as a consumer in this instant case, as per explanation stated below.

32. The opposite parties bank gives MUDRA loan to the persons who wishes to opposite parties 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 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, here complainant has not received any services from opposite parties bank.  Hence he is not a consumer.

33. 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 party’s 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.

34. 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 24^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021)

    (B. NIRMALAKUMAR)      (RENUKAMBA.C)               (PRAKASH.K)                                      

           MEMBER                    MEMBER                         PRESIDENT