Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and "service" means service of any description which Is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but doss not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under 9 contract of personal service.

The definition of consumer is wide and covers in its ambit not only the goods but also services, bought or hired, for consideration.

In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Pas [(1994) 4 SCC 225 the definition of "consumer' was explained as:

"The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word 'consumer' is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality, in every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of ail business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer." i This Court again in S.P. Goel vs. Collector of Stamps Delhi 1(1996) 1 SCC 573 considered, with approval, the meaning and scope of the words "consumer", "service" and "deficiency in service".

We cannot accept the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering 'service' within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the scheme discharges statutory functions for running the scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the 'service' under the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity, it cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the 'scheme' were not "service" or that the benefits under the scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of "consumer" under the Act includes not only the person who hires the 'services' for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no pad of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the scheme shall be deemed to hsve been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who wouid be treated as beneficiary within the meaning of that word used in the definition of consumer. This Court in M/s.Sprinq Meadown Hospital & Anr. vs. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. [JT 1998 (2) SC 620, to which one of us (Saghir Ahmad.J) was a party has already held that the "consumer" means a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. The Act gives 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 of such 'consumer' was held to be having the status of 'consumer'. In an action by any such member of the family of beneficiary of the service it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there was no privity of contract. In this regard this Court specifically held:

"In the present case. we are concerned with clause
(ii) of Section 2(1)(d). In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such- services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1 )(d)(ii) of the Act and as such can claim compensation under the Act"