MANOJ KUMAR SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. CHANDRIKA PRASAD RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a trader. Respondent No.1 is carrying on the business as a broker and respondent No.2 is its proprietor. The respondents introduced a firm M/s. Rajesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar to the complainant to whom they sold goods. It is alleged that it was agreed between the parties that if any customer introduced by respondent No.1, did not pay full price of the goods the respondent had to indemnify the complainant. The firm M/s. Rajesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar did not pay the full price to the complainant and on going through the account it was found that an amount of Rs.2,17,440/- was due from them. The complainant has, therefore, filed a complaint praying that the respondents be directed to secure the amount of Rs.2,17,440/- from the said firm and in case they failed to do so they should be directed to pay that amount to the complainant.

(2.) The question that arises for determination in the present case is whether the complainant falls within the definition of the 'consumer' or not. The word 'consumer' has been defined in the Act in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act. The definition reads as follows : consumer' means any person who, (i) XXX (ii) hires any services 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 services other than the person who hires 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;"

(3.) No written agreement to indemnify the complaint by respondent No.1 has been produced. In these circumstances in our view the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Act. Consequently we dismiss the complaint in limine.