Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Said order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/OPs by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.

8. Dr. Sukant Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs has vehemently argued that the Respondent/Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Act, as he was neither the Applicant of the tubewell connection before the OPs nor he was aggrieved in not releasing the said connection. He had no locus standi to file the Complaint, as the tubewell connection was applied by his wife. The Complainant had not placed on record any authorization or Power of Attorney to file the Complaint and as such he was not entitled to file the Complaint before the District Commission. The Complaint was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

14. The Appellants/OPs have raised an objection that the Complainant had no locus standi to file the Complaint as the tubewell connection was applied by his wife and as such the Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer'.

15. The definition of 'consumer' as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Act is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:

"(7) "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; or

16. On perusal of definition of 'Consumer' as reproduced above, it is apparent that the Complaint filed by the Complainant, being the beneficiary of the services availed by his wife, was maintainable before the District Commission. Even otherwise also, all the correspondence was done by the Complainant himself being the husband of the Applicant with the OPs under his name. Similar issue was there before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjot Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7858 of 1997 decided on 25.03.1998. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:

"Before we examine the aforesaid questions, it would be appropriate to notice the scenario in which the parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The United Nations had passed a resolution in April, 1985 indicating certain guidelines under which the Government could make law for better protection of the interest of the consumers. Such laws were necessary more in the developing countries to protect the consumers from hazards to their health and safety and make them available speedier and cheaper redress. Consumerism has been a movement in which the trader and the consumer find each other as adversaries. Till last two decades in many developed and developing countries powerful consumer organisations have come into existence and such organisations have instrumental in dealing with the consumer protection laws and in expansion of the horizon of such laws. In our country the legislation is of recent origin and its efficacy has not been critically evaluated which has to be done on the basis of experience. Undoubtedly the Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary court system. The Act gives a comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term 'consumer' even a member of the family cannot be denied the status of consumer under the Act and in an action by any such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract. The Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction on the Commission in respect of matters where either there is defect in goods or there is deficiency in service or there has been an unfair and restrictive trade practice or in the matter of charging of excessive price. The Act being a beneficial legislation intended to confer some speedier remedy on a consumer from being exploited by unscrupulous traders, the provisions thereof should receive a liberal construction."