DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.251 of 13-06-2013

Decided on 25-06-2013

Harpal Singh aged about 28 years S/o Beant Singh R/o VPO Nathana, Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Union of India, through Ministry of Technology and Telecommunication, New Delhi.

2.General Manager (T.D.) BSNL, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Bathinda.

3.A.G.M. (Sales-CM) O/O GMT/D Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Pritpal Nayyar, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Not summoned.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that an advertisement was published in the newspaper 'Daily Ajit' on dated 9.8.2012, in which the opposite parties required the distributors for the rural area to increase the sale and supply of BSNL Sim etc. to the consumers. The complainant applied for the distributorship and attached all the documents as mentioned in the advertisement. The application of the complainant was duly received on 27.8.2012 and all the proofs and other documents were attached with the application as per the requirement of the opposite parties. The complainant received a letter No.2012/RD/Appointment/11 dated 15.10.2012 in which the opposite parties called him for the interview on 26.10.2012 and the candidates namely Deepak Kumar S/o Tarsem Lal R/o village Krar Wala, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda; Jagtar Singh S/o Naib Singh R/o H.No.192, village Mehma Sarkari, Distt. Bathinda and Jagdeep Singh S/o Balbir Singh R/o H.No.615, village Mandi Kalan, Distt. Bathinda were also called for interview. The abovesaid letter was sent by the opposite party No.3 and on the fixed date the complainant appeared before the opposite parties. The complainant received a letter from the nominee No.3 vide letter No.BT-SSA/S and D policy-2012/RD/Appointment/14 dated 5.11.2012 vide this letter the complainant was selected as a rural distributor of the area Nathana Distt. Bathinda, he signed an agreement and deposited the security of Rs.10,000/-. As per the directions of the opposite parties, the complainant gave the FDR of Rs.10,000/- of Oriental Bank of Commerce w.e.f 20.11.2012 and the maturity date was 20.11.2013. Till date the opposite parties did not allow the complainant to start the work as a distributor of their corporation, even though they did not supply any articles to supply the same to the consumers but have kept his FDR and are earning the interest on it. The complainant has got sent the legal notice to the opposite parties but they have neither given any reply to the legal notice nor allotted any work or sent the articles and have refused to accede to his request. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to allot the work and release all the necessary articles alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complainant and record placed on file by the complainant perused.

3. The matter in dispute in the present complaint is regarding the distributorship of the rural area to increase the sale and supply of BSNL Sim to the consumers. The complainant applied for the distributorship and attached all the documents as mentioned in the advertisement. The said application of the complainant was received by the opposite parties on 27.8.2012. The complainant received a letter No.2012/RD/Appointment/11 dated 15.10.2012 in which the opposite parties called him for the interview on 26.10.2012 and vide letter No.BT-SSA/S and D policy-2012/RD/Appointment/14 dated 5.11.2012 selected him as a rural distributor of the area Nathana Distt. Bathinda. The agreement was signed and the complainant deposited the security of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant gave the FDR of Rs.10,000/- of Oriental Bank of Commerce w.e.f 20.11.2012 and the maturity date was 20.11.2013 but the opposite parties did not allow him to start the work as a distributor of their corporation and have also not supplied any articles to supply the consumers but they kept his FDR and are earning the interest on it.

4. A bare perusal of complaint as well as his affidavit shows that he has applied for the distributorship with the opposite parties that have also been given to him but in his entire complaint as well as affidavit, the complainant has nowhere pleaded that he has applied for the distributorship for eking his livelihood for the self employment. There is no pleading to show the distributorship has been taken exclusively for the purpose of his livelihood by means of self-employment. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Shikha Birla Vs. DLF Retailer Developers Ltd., I (2013) CPJ 665 (NC) wherein it was held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(d), 21(a)(i)-Consumer-Commercial purpose-Purchase of shop-Complainant is purchasing shop for commercial purpose-There is no pleading nor any evidence to show that shop purchased is exclusively for purpose of her livelihood by means of self-employment-Shop is being purchased for commercial purposes-Complainant is not consumer.”

Moreover he sought the distributorship of the BSNL Sims to resale the BSNL Sims to the customers that is purely a commercial transaction. The complainant has nowhere disclosed in his complaint that earlier what type of work/business/job he was doing. Hence he does not fall under the definition of the 'Consumer' as provided under the 'Act'. The relevant portion of section 2 (1) (d) is reproduced hereunder:-

“(d) “Consumer” means any person who -

(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services 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 or with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation – For the purposes of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.”

5. In the absence of these words it is deemed that the complainant has sought the distributorship to earn the huge profit that falls under the commercial transaction.

6. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is not maintainable thus dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. Before parting of this order it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for the redressal of his grievance if so advised and permitted by law.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

25-06-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member